UUV FCEPS Technology Assessment and Design Process PDF

“UUV FCEPS Technology Assessment and Design Process”
Kevin L. Davies 1 and Robert M. Moore

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI), School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST)
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Executive Summary
The primary goal of this technology assessment is to provide an initial evaluation and technology
screening for the application of a Fuel Cell Energy/Power System (FCEPS) to the propulsion of an
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV). The impetus for this technology assessment is the expectation
that an FCEPS has the potential to significantly increase the energy storage in an UUV, when compared
to other refuelable Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) energy/power systems, e.g., such as those based on
rechargeable (“secondary”) batteries. If increased energy availability is feasible, the FCEPS will enable
greater mission duration (range) and/or higher performance capabilities within a given mission. A
secondary goal of this report is to propose a design process for an FCEPS within the UUV application.
This executive summary is an overview of the findings in the attached main report body (“UUV FCEPS
Technology Assessment and Design Process”) which provides a complete technology assessment and
design process report on available UUV FCEPS technology, design methodology, and concepts. The
report is limited to the Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell (FC) operating on hydrogen and
oxygen.
The Fuel Cell System (FCS) within the FCEPS is the systematic combination of the fuel cell stack and its
supporting valves, manifolds, and other components, hybrid/auxiliary battery or other energy storage,
electric conversion devices (DC/DC converter, inverter, etc.), and, optionally, a fuel processing system
(reformer). The Storage System (SS) is defined as the onboard stored fuel, oxidant, and product water.
The overall FCEPS is the combination of the FCS, SS, ballast or floats, and overhead structure,
insulation, etc. – as required for the UUV application and mission profiles.
In this report, the FCEPS is compared to two benchmark metrics for refuelable AIP energy/power
systems, as applied to UUV propulsion. These benchmark metrics are:
1. A “Threshold” energy density value
2. An energy density value for a Rechargeable Battery Energy/Power System (RBEPS) based on the
use of Li-Ion (or Li-Poly) rechargeable batteries.
A 60” LD MRUUV is used as the nominal application for the FCEPS technology assessment provided in
this report. The U.S. Navy has set Threshold and Objective energy storage requirements for the 60” LD
MRUUV. The Threshold requirement is used as the primary benchmark for this assessment. To provide
additional context for the assessment, the energy density value for a RBEPS is used as a secondary
benchmark for this assessment. This RBEPS metric is based on the use of Li-Ion (or Li-Poly)
1
kdavies@hawaii.edu
[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 1 10/27/2006

rechargeable batteries in a RBEPS designed for the 60” UUV application – i.e., with the density
(buoyancy) set by the U.S. Navy for the 60” LD MRUUV.
The FCEPS design concept presented in this report uses a holistic approach in combining alternative
hydrogen and oxygen storage, and fuel cell system, options to provide the highest specific energy (SE)
and energy density (ED) within the UUV constraints – including the FCEPS mass, volume, and required
power. Using this method, some surprising combinations appear as the theoretical “winners” – when
used in an FCEPS with the BZM 34 (Siemens) fuel cell system. Of course, a complete prototype design
and application simulation would have to be carried out using each of the alternative fuel cell system and
H2-O2 storage combinations to determine the SE and ED values for each FCEPS design concept with a
high degree of precision. However, the screening methodology used in this assessment is quantitatively
useful in reducing the number of different storage and fuel cell system combinations which will
eventually need to be evaluated in this more resource intensive fashion.
Keeping in mind this disclaimer regarding precision, the technology assessment presented in the main
body of this report leads to the conclusion that a combination of the 60% lithium hydride slurry system
(Safe Hydrogen, LLC) with CAN 33 chlorate candles (Molecular Products) provides the best energy
storage option – with SE and ED for the 60” UUV application at 0.44 kWh/kg and 0.48 kWh/L,
respectively. In contrast, an FCEPS using a very conservative H2-O2 storage combination of compressed
hydrogen and compressed oxygen provides less than half of these values – with SE and ED at 0.19
kWh/kg and 0.21 kWh/L, respectively. These bounding values of SE and ED for an FCEPS provide a
range of options that can be compared with the Threshold and RBEPS values of SE and ED at 0.29
kWh/kg and 0.25 kWh/L, and 0.17 kWh/kg and 0.19 kWh/L, respectively, in order to provide perspective
for the FCEPS options.
Overall, the FCEPS SE and ED range noted above (for the best and the very conservative H2-O2 storage
options, with the BZW fuel cell system) compares extremely favorably with the Navy Threshold and the
RBEPS benchmark metrics for energy storage. Based on these SE and ED values for the FCEPS, this
initial technology assessment supports the expectation that an FCEPS has the potential to significantly
increase the energy storage in a UUV, when compared to other refuelable Air-Independent Propulsion
(AIP) energy/power systems, and, in addition, indicates a high probability that an FCEPS can achieve the
Threshold value for energy storage of the 60” LD MRUUV.
However, to balance this very positive conclusion, it is also clear that there is no reasonable near-term
expectation of achieving the Objective energy storage value set by the Navy (SE and ED at 3.18 kWh/kg
2.20 kWh/L) using any of the FCEPS technologies assessed in this report. Achieving the Objective
energy storage metric will require a breakthrough in either H2-O2 storage technology or in enabling an
FCS which can convert high energy liquid fuels within the constraints of an AIP designed for the UUV
application.
One final caveat on the SE and ED values for the best combination of H2-O2 storage considered here (the
60% lithium hydride slurry plus CAN 33 chlorate candle H2-O2 system) is that this option can perhaps be
most fairly compared to a primary battery based EPS rather than a RBEPS – unless these storage media
can be implemented as truly a “refuelable” technology. But, even using this combination, the Objective
energy storage value set by the Navy for the 60” LD MRUUV is not attainable.

Contents
Revision History ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Revision History ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 6
Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 6
Requirements and Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................... 7
General UUV ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Navy 60” LD MRUUV ......................................................................................................................... 8
Previous H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell Stacks, Systems, and Applications ........................................................ 9
Helion 20 kW........................................................................................................................................ 9
Lynntech Gen IV Flightweight 5 kW for Helios .................................................................................. 9
Nedstack.............................................................................................................................................. 11
Siemens ............................................................................................................................................... 12
ZSW .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Electrochem 1 kW for NASA ............................................................................................................. 15
Honeywell 5.25 kW for NASA........................................................................................................... 15
Hydrogenics 5 kW for NASA............................................................................................................. 16
MHI for Urashima............................................................................................................................... 16
Teledyne 7 kW for NASA .................................................................................................................. 17
UTC for 44" UUV............................................................................................................................... 17
Zongshen PEM Power Systems .......................................................................................................... 18
Other Applications .............................................................................................................................. 18
Design Tools and Methodology.................................................................................................................. 25
Relationship of Specific Energy, Energy Density, and Buoyancy.......................................................... 25
Relationship of Specific Power, Power Density, and Buoyancy ............................................................ 28
Impact of Efficiency on Net Energy ....................................................................................................... 29
FCS Choice ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Additional FCS Components .............................................................................................................. 29
Concept Design Steps ............................................................................................................................. 30
Rechargeable Battery Energy/Power System (RBEPS).............................................................................. 32
Fuel Cell Energy/Power System (FCEPS).................................................................................................. 37
Storage System........................................................................................................................................ 37
Hydrogen Storage ............................................................................................................................... 37
Oxygen Storage................................................................................................................................... 44
Product Water Storage ........................................................................................................................ 50
Integrated Storage System .................................................................................................................. 51
Fuel Cell System ..................................................................................................................................... 54
FCEPS Integration and Supporting Technology..................................................................................... 55
FCEPS Design Concepts......................................................................................................................... 56
Comparison of FCEPS and RBEPS ............................................................................................................ 62
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 64
References................................................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix A: Equations............................................................................................................................... 69

Storage Metrics ....................................................................................................................................... 69
FCS Choice ............................................................................................................................................. 70
Additional FCS Components .................................................................................................................. 70
Equivalent Specific Energy and Energy Density at Desired Density ..................................................... 72
Ballast/Float Sizing................................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix B: Storage System Options ........................................................................................................ 75
Figures
Figure 1: UUV FCEPS block diagram.......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Polarization of Lynntech Flightweight 5 kW fuel cell stack for Helios [Garcia, et al., p. 5] ...... 10
Figure 3: Efficiency of Lynntech Flightweight Gen IV fuel cell stack for Helios [Velev, et al., p. 4]....... 10
Figure 4: Polarization of the Nedstack A200 fuel cell stacks ..................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Polarization of Siemens BZM 120 (before and after ~ 1000 hr. operation) [Hammerschmidt,
2003] ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Polarization and power curves of ZSW BZ 100 fuel cell stack................................................... 15
Figure 7: Urashima Fuel Cell System [Maeda, et al., p. 3]......................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Specific Energy, Energy Density, and buoyancy ........................................................................ 26
Figure 9: Gravimetric Energy Density as a function of Volumetric Energy Density for energy storage
mediums [Pinkerton and Wicke]................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 10: Effect of additional FCEPS component on Storage System volume......................................... 30
Figure 11: SE and ED of rechargeable lithium battery options .................................................................. 34
Figure 12: Capacity fade of Ultralife UBC641730 ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 13: SE and ED of hydrogen storage options (all options) ............................................................... 38
Figure 14: SE and ED of hydrogen storage options (complete systems only)............................................ 39
Figure 15: Energy Density of compressed hydrogen gas as a function of pressure.................................... 43
Figure 16: SE and ED of oxygen storage options ....................................................................................... 45
Figure 17: Energy Density of compressed oxygen gas as a function of pressure ....................................... 49
Figure 18: SE and ED of Storage System options (all options, neglecting product water storage)............ 52
Figure 19: SE and ED of Storage System options (all options, with product water storage) ..................... 53
Figure 20: SE and ED of Storage System options (complete systems only, with product water storage).. 54
Figure 21: SP and PD of Fuel Cell stacks and systems............................................................................... 55
Figure 22: Utilization of available mass for selected FCEPS concepts ...................................................... 58
Figure 23: Utilization of available volume for selected FCEPS concepts .................................................. 59
Figure 24: SE and ED of FCEPS and RBEPS at various required densities .............................................. 63
Figure 25: SE and ED of FCEPS and RBEPS as a function of required density........................................ 64
Tables
Table 1: Navy LD MRUUV FCEPS threshold requirements [Egan, 18-19, 22] .......................................... 8
Table 2: Navy LD MRUUV FCEPS objective requirements [Egan, 18-19, 22] .......................................... 8
Table 3: H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell stacks and systems ................................................................................... 24
Table 4: Hydrogen and oxygen storage metrics.......................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Lithium rechargeable battery options ........................................................................................... 36
Table 6: Hydrogen storage options ............................................................................................................. 42
Table 7: Oxygen storage options ................................................................................................................ 48
Table 8: FCEPS design concepts ................................................................................................................ 61

Revision History
January 3, 2006: Initial Draft
October 27 2006: Final Report:

Section and Page Change
Page 55 (Fuel Cell System) Updated Figure 21 to include Navy requirements
Correction of Energy Density of Ideal 100% hydrogen peroxide:
• Page 48 (Table 7) Energy density of "Ideal hydrogen peroxide (H_2O_2)" changed
from 4.74 kWh/L to 5.53 kWh/L
• Page 48 (Table 7) Reference for "Ideal hydrogen peroxide (H_2O_2)" changed
• Page 75-79 (Appendix B: Energy Density of Storage System options involving "Ideal
Storage System Options) hydrogen peroxide (H_2O_2)" (symbol 5) updated
• Page 45 (Figure 16), Page 52 Updated to reflect new Energy Density
(Figure 18), Page 53 (Figure
19)
Correction of typographical errors:
• Page 2 (Executive Summary) Fixed typographical error
• Page 16 (Hydrogenics 5 kW Fixed typographical error
for NASA)
• Page 32 (Rechargeable Corrected spelling of Lithium Thionyl Chloride
Battery Energy/Power System
(RBEPS))
Page 49 (Compressed Oxygen) Noted reactivity of compressed oxygen gas very high pressures
Page 50 (Chlorate Candles) Noted that the output rate of chlorate candles is not controllable
during operation

Introduction
In general, the interest for applying fuel cells to Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) comes from the
assumption that fuel cells have the potential to increase the energy storage in a given UUV as compared
to other Air-Independent Propulsion systems such as batteries. This increased energy storage would
enable greater mission durations and/or ranges.
This report will summarize the available fuel cell and hydrogen/oxygen storage technologies and their
relevant previous applications. The report will then present methods of assessing the technology and
designing high-level Fuel Cell Energy/Power System (FCEPS) concepts. The goal is to develop a
foundation for designing a FCEPS for an UUV and prove or disprove the previous assumptions associated
with the application in the process. Here, the assessment is limited to Polymer Electrolyte Membrane
(PEM) Fuel Cells (FC) operating on hydrogen and oxygen.
Definitions
Below are definitions of terms and acronyms used in this report:
AIP Air-Independent Propulsion
ASDS Advanced SEAL Delivery System
AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
COTS Commercial Off The Shelf
DOD Depth Of Discharge
ED Energy Density
FC Fuel Cell
FCEPS Fuel Cell Energy/Power System
FCS Fuel Cell System
FMEA Failure Modes and Effect Analysis
H2/Air FC Fuel Cell operating on hydrogen and air
H2/O2 FC Fuel Cell operating on hydrogen and oxygen
LD Large Displacement
LOX Liquid Oxygen
MRUUV Mission Reconfigurable Unmanned Underwater Vehicle
MTBF Mean Time Between Failures
PD Power Density
PEM Polymer Electrolyte Membrane or Proton Exchange Membrane
RBEPS Rechargeable Battery Energy/Power System
SE Specific Energy
SP Specific Power
SS Storage System
UUV Unmanned Underwater Vehicle
Figure 1 defines the FCS and FCEPS by showing and grouping the basic propulsion-related components
of the UUV.

FUEL
EXTERNAL ON BOARD PROCESSING
ELECTRIC
FUEL/ FUEL/ SYSTEM
FUEL CELL CONTROLLER MOTOR AND PROPELLOR
OXIDANT OXIDANT (INDIRECT
TRANSMISSION
SOURCE STORAGE HYDROGEN
FUEL CELL)
OVERHEAD
(STRUCTURE, HYBRID/
INSULATION, AUXILIARY
ETC.) ENERGY
STORAGE
BALLAST/
FLOATS
Fuel Cell System (FCS)
Fuel Cell Energy Power System (FCEPS)
Underwater Unmanned Vehicle (UUV)
Required component
Optional component
Figure 1: UUV FCEPS block diagram
Requirements and Environmental Conditions

There are a number of FCEPS requirements that must be balanced while meeting the constraints imposed
by harsh environmental conditions.
General UUV
Below is a list of general requirements for the FCEPS design. Some requirements are interrelated, for
instance physical dimensions, mass, and buoyancy.
1. Electrical (net energy available, maximum power, average power, nominal voltage, voltage
response under transient loads, etc.)
2. Physical dimensions (diameter, length, volume)
3. Mass
4. Buoyancy (density at start of mission, density change throughout mission, center of mass, center
of buoyancy)
5. Safety (FMEA risk levels, etc.)
6. Cost (unit cost and recurring cost)
7. Operation (fueling procedure, startup time, shutdown time, fueled and defueled shelf life)
8. Maintenance and repair (repair procedures and intervals; mean time between failures (MTBF);
lifetime in terms of time, start/stop cycles, kWh; etc.)
9. Noise and vibration (maximum levels)
The environmental conditions include those below. The conditions are those as experienced by the
FCEPS, not the UUV. For example, depending on the pressure hull arrangement of the UUV, the
pressure experienced by the FCEPS may be different than that experienced by the UUV. The conditions
must be considered not only during operation, but during transport and storage as well.
1. Operating pressure (minimum and maximum).
2. Temperature (minimum and maximum)

3. Orientation (pitch and roll)
4. Relative humidity
5. Corrosion
6. Vibration
7. Electromagnetic radiation
Navy 60” LD MRUUV

The 60” Large Displacement Mission Recoverable UUV (60” LD MRUUV) is used as the subject for the
FCEPS assessment presented in this report. The U.S. Navy has set threshold and objective requirements
for the 60” LD MRUUV. Since the objectives are more stringent than the thresholds (smaller in the case
of physical dimensions, larger in the case of energy and power, etc.), they are used as the target
requirements for the assessment presented in this paper. Table 1 and Table 2 list the threshold and
objective requirements for the 60” LD MRUUV. The PD, SP, ED, and SE values in normal font style are
the Draft Fuel Cell Propulsion System Requirements [Egan]. The PD, SP, ED, and SE values in
parenthesized italics are based on a division of the energy and peak power values by the volume and mass
requirements. For the purposes of this assessment, the objective Draft Fuel Cell Propulsion System
Requirements are used as the FCEPS requirements for PD, SP, ED, and SE, even though these values do
not equate to a consistent FCEPS density value.
The 60” LD MRUUV will be designed with a modular architecture so that certain components (including
the energy Storage System) can be exchanged [Egan]. In order to maintain neutral overall vehicle
buoyancy, any two components to be swapped must have equal density. The components may or may not
have neutral buoyancy independent of the entire UUV, however. Note that the objective volume and
mass values in Table 2 equate to a FCEPS density of 1.11 kg/L. This is used as the target FCEPS density
to generate design concepts later, although it is higher than the standard of 1.0275 kg/L used for neutral
buoyancy in submarine design [Burcher and Rydill, p. 38].
Power Energy
40 kW peak 1725 kWh
Volume Power Density Energy Density
5663 L 0.006 or (0.007) kW/L 0.247 or (0.305) kWh/L
Mass Specific Power Specific Energy
7575 kg 0.009 or (0.005) kW/kg 0.285 or (0.228 ) kWh/kg
Table 1: Navy LD MRUUV FCEPS threshold requirements [Egan, 18-19, 22]
Power Energy
70 kW peak 11,500 kWh
Volume Power Density Energy Density
3681 L 0.026 or (0.019) kW/L 3.178 or (3.124) kWh/L
Mass Specific Power Specific Energy
4082 kg 0.018 or (0.017) kW/kg 2.200 or (2.817) kWh/kg
Table 2: Navy LD MRUUV FCEPS objective requirements [Egan, 18-19, 22]

Although the outside diameter of the 60” LD MRUUV is 60 inches, the available diameter for the FCEPS
is 55 inches, or 1.40 m. 2 Using the volume requirements in Table 1 and Table 2, the resulting FCEPS
length is 3.69 m and 2.40 m for the threshold and objective requirements, respectively.
The UUV must be capable of being fueled and refueled onboard a ship or submarine. The UUV may be
transported by air, truck, rail, or ship, which imposes environmental conditions that must be considered in
addition to those imposed in the underwater environment 3 .
The voltage output of the FCEPS must be between 100 and 400 VDC. The maximum fixed cost of the
FCEPS is $10,000 per kWh of capacity. The maximum recurring cost is $100 per kWh used [Egan, 20].
The UUV is expected to experience a minimum temperature of -7 ºC during transport and storage to a
maximum of 54 ºC while deployed on a submarine. The UUV will experience a minimum pressure of 10
kPa during transport by airplane and a maximum pressure during underwater operation 4 . Seawater
pressure will increase by about 10 kPa per meter of seawater depth. However, the expected operating
depth of the LD MRUUV is unknown, and it is also unknown whether the FCEPS will be installed inside
an existing UUV pressure hull or be subjected to seawater pressure itself.
Previous H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell Stacks, Systems, and Applications

Numerous H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell stacks and systems have been designed or are in development for
marine and space vehicular applications. Summaries of the relevant projects are below. Table 3 lists the
power, mass, dimensions, voltage, current, pressure, efficiency, and other characteristics where available.
Helion 20 kW
The Helion fuel cell stack is water cooled and uses graphite polymer composite bipolar plates 5 .
Additional information is listed in Table 3.
Lynntech Gen IV Flightweight 5 kW for Helios

The maximum operating pressure of the Lynntech fuel cell stack is 0.690 MPa, and the maximum anode-
cathode pressure difference is 0.345 MPa [Velev, et al., p. 2]. The minimum and maximum operating
temperatures are 40 and 60 ºC, respectively [Velev, et al.]. The fuel cell stack is 54% efficient at 350
mA/cm2 and 0.80 volts per cell average (70 A total current) and 48% efficient at 500 mA/cm2 and 0.71
volts per cell average (100 A total current) [Garcia, et al., p. 5-6]. The polarization of the fuel cell stack is
shown in Figure 2, where temperature of the fuel cell ranged from 20 ºC and 60 ºC depending on the load
point and pressure was constant [Garcia, et al., p. 5]. Figure 2 shows the average cell voltage of the
Lynntech fuel cell stack as a function of current density. Figure 3 shows the efficiency as a function of
stack power. Additional information is listed in Table 3.
2
Maria Medeiros, email communication, 21-Jul-2005
3
"Table 3.2.5-1. BLQ-11 Environmental Conditions," received by email from Maria Medeiros, 21-Jul-2005
4
"Table 3.2.5-1. BLQ-11 Environmental Conditions," received by email from Maria Medeiros, 21-Jul-2005
5
press release, “AREVA develops the first French 20 kW fuel cell stack,”
http://www.areva.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=arevagroup_en%2FPressRelease%2FPressReleaseFullTemplate&cid=1
095412362058, December 8, 2004

Figure 2: Polarization of Lynntech Flightweight 5 kW fuel cell stack for Helios [Garcia, et al., p. 5]
Figure 3: Efficiency of Lynntech Flightweight Gen IV fuel cell stack for Helios [Velev, et al., p. 4]
Helios was a solar/regenerative fuel cell powered airplane for high altitude operation [Bents, et al.] The
Helios system used a separate electrolyzer and fuel cell in a closed cycle H2/O2 system. The system was
designed at the NASA Glenn Research Center. Hydrogen and oxygen were both stored as compressed
gas in composite tanks from Quantum Technology. In operation, the tanks are only charged to 190 psig
and discharged to 90 psig, storing a net 21 kWh of hydrogen and oxygen 6 .
6
Based on hydrogen LHV and 317 moles H2 and 158 moles O2 as specified in [Garcia, p. 3]

Nedstack
Nedstack develops and utilizes composite bipolar plates (Conduplate-LT; Conduplate-MT-X; Conduplate
HT-X) for their fuel cell stacks 7 .
Nedstack A200 (5, 10, 20 kWe)

The Nedstack A200 is designed for both air and oxygen operation. The stack is liquid cooled, with
operation between 0 and 80 ºC. The stack lifetime is listed as greater than 5000 hours. The anode and
cathode are capable of operating with reactants between 0 and 100% relative humidity 8, 9, 10 . Polarization
graphs are shown in Figure 4. Additional information is listed in Table 3.
7
http://www.nedstack.com/
8
product literature, "PEM fuel cell stacks Nedstack 5 kWe – A200," http://www.nedstack.com/pdf/Nedstack_05-A200.pdf, April
2005
9
product literature, "PEM fuel cell stacks Nedstack 10 kWe – A200," http://www.nedstack.com/pdf/Nedstack_10-A200.pdf,
April 2005
10
product literature, "PEM fuel cell stacks Nedstack 20 kWe – A200," http://www.nedstack.com/pdf/Nedstack_20-A200.pdf,
April 2005

Figure 4: Polarization of the Nedstack A200 fuel cell stacks
Nedstack for Submarine

Nedstack is developing a 300 kW fuel cell for a European submarine [Baker and Jollie, p. 21]. The
Nedstack website claims greater than 10,000 hour lifetime and 60% efficiency at atmospheric pressure
and extremely high Specific Energy and Energy Density values as listed in Table 3 11 .
Siemens
The Siemens BZM 34 and BZM 120 Fuel Cell Systems are based on technology originally developed by
General Electric [Strasser, p. 1201]. The PEM is DuPont Nafion® 117 [Strasser, p. 1203], and the cell
thickness is 2.2 mm [Hammerschmidt, 2003]. The fuel cells are water cooled [Hammerschmidt, 2003].
The reactants are humidified before introduction to the stack by water exchange through PEM material
[Strasser, p. 1206]. The reactants are not recirculated, but are passed through four groupings of
decreasing numbers of cells with water separation stages between each group. The voltage of the final
11
http://www.nedstack.com/

grouping (a single cell) is used to control the reactant purging [Strasser, p. 1205]. The Siemens fuel cells
offer quick start up and shutdown [Hammerschmidt and Lersch, p. 2] and respond to dynamic load
changes within 100 ms [Strasser, p. 1207].
For safety reasons, the fuel cell stacks operate inside a pressure vessel which contains nitrogen gas at a
pressure of 0.35 MPa [Strasser, p. 1206]. The mass specifications in Table 3 include the pressure vessel
[Hammerschmidt, 2003]. The ambient pressure outside the pressure vessel is that of the submarine
environment [Hammerschmidt, 2003].
The Siemens BZM 34 and BZM 120 have been or are being installed in at least 16 submarine
applications 12 . Typically, eight of the modules are connected in series with one backup module available
in each installation. Hydrogen is stored in a maintenance-free metal hydride tank which can be mounted
between the outer hull and inner pressure hull. Oxygen is stored as a liquid in double-walled and
vacuum-insulated tanks [Hauschildt and Hammerschmidt].
Siemens BZM 34
The BZM 34 has an efficiency of 69% at 6.8 kW (20% of the maximum continuous power rating) 13 .
BZM 34 modules are being installed in Type 212 submarines ordered by Germany and Italy 14 . The
power system also includes high-performance lead acid batteries and a diesel generator 15 .
Siemens BZM 120

The BZM 120 has an efficiency of 68% at 24 kW (20% of the maximum continuous power rating) 16 . The
BZM 120 module consists of two fuel cell stacks. Electrical and cooling water flows are parallel, and
reactant flow is serial [Hammerschmidt and Lersch, p. 2]. Figure 5 shows the polarization of the BZM
120 before and after about 1000 hours of operation. The information in Table 3 refers to the system with
both stacks together as one unit.
The BZM 120 is undergoing sea trials. It has been or will be installed in new German Type 212B
submarines. It will be installed in Italian Type 212A submarines and retrofitted Greek and Portuguese
Type 209 submarines. Each Type 214 submarine ordered by Greece and Korea will be powered by 2
BZM 120 modules [Baker and Jollie, p. 17-18]. The Type 214 power system also includes high-
performance lead acid batteries and a diesel generator 17 . The oxygen tank is installed inside the pressure
hull of the Type 214 submarine [Hauschildt and Hammerschmidt].
12
"Fuel cell submarines offer underwater stealth," http://www.gizmag.com/go/3434/, November 7, 2004
13
Siemens AG product literature, "SINAVYcis Application Potential,” 2004, p. 5
14
“Type 214” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type-214.htm, accessed 12-Oct-2005
15
16
Siemens AG product literature, "SINAVYcis Application Potential,” 2004, p. 5
17

Figure 5: Polarization of Siemens BZM 120 (before and after ~ 1000 hr. operation) [Hammerschmidt,
2003]
ZSW
ZSW (Centre for Solar Energy & Hydrogen Research) in Germany has developed a series of fuel cell
stacks and is developing a Fuel Cell System for DeepC, an underwater research vehicle. ZSW uses
graphite composites for some bipolar plate designs and injection-molding for others 18 .
ZSW BZ 100 (100, 250, 500, 1000W)

The ZSW BZ 100 series is designed for air or O2 cathode operation 19 . Figure 6 shows the polarization
and power of the BZ 100 as a function of current loading. Additional information is listed in Table 3.
18
product literature, "Electrochemical Hydrogen Technology (ECW) PEM-Fuel-Cells," http://www.zsw-
bw.de/en/docs/products/pdfs/ECW_BZ_en.pdf, accessed 12-Oct-2005
19

Figure 6: Polarization and power curves of ZSW BZ 100 fuel cell stack 20
ZSW for DeepC

The DeepC AUV design is powered by two ZSW stacks, each capable of 1.8 kW net electrical power
[Joerissen, et al., p. 1013-1014]. The reactants are recirculated with small diaphragm pumps and inert
gases are purged [Joerissen, et al., p. 1013-1014]. The reactants are not humidified externally of the fuel
cell stack [Hornfeld, p. 4]. The information listed in Table 3 refers to both fuel cell stacks as one unit.
The fuel cell stack, cooling equipment, storage tanks, and power distribution electronics will be installed
inside the pressure hull of the vehicle [Geiger, 2002], [Joerissen, et al., p. 1013]. Hydrogen and oxygen
will be compressed in composite tanks [Joerissen, et al., p. 1013].
Electrochem 1 kW for NASA

The Electrochem Fuel Cell System was developed and delivered to NASA for potential space
applications. Reactants are recirculated passively with ejectors 21 . Additional information is listed in
Table 3.
Honeywell 5.25 kW for NASA

The Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal Aerospace) fuel cell stack was designed and developed in 1998 for
testing for future NASA Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) applications. Testing of both short stacks and
the full 5.25 kW stack was successful. The cells were hexagonally shaped [Perez-Davis, et al.]. No
further information is available of the stack.
20
21
“Proton-Exchange-Membrane Fuel Cell Powerplants Developed and Tested for Exploration Missions,”
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RP/RPC-hoberecht.html, accessed 12-Oct-2005

Hydrogenics 5 kW for NASA
Hydrogenics provided a 5 kW fuel cell stack to the NASA Glenn Research Center for testing as a part of
the regenerative fuel cell effort. This is Hydrogenics’ fuel H2/O2 PEM fuel cell 22 . Hydrogenics adapted
it from a H2/air stack. NASA has not yet tested the stack 23 . No further information is available.
MHI for Urashima

The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Fuel Cell System includes two stacks electrically in series
[Hyakudome, et al., p. 164]. The information listed in Table 3 refers to the entire system with both
stacks. The anode flow is actively humidified and the cathode flow is humidified by passing the oxygen
through the product water tank. Hydrogen and oxygen are both recirculated, but the system is closed in
that all product water and impurities accumulate within the system. The stacks are water cooled [Maeda,
et al., p. 3]. Figure 7 shows a block diagram of the system.
The Japan Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC) installed the MHI Fuel Cell System in its
Urashima AUV. The entire Fuel Cell System, including the stack, heat exchanger, and reaction water
tank, is mounted inside a titanium alloy pressure vessel having the dimensions listed in Table 3 [Maeda,
et al., p. 3].
Hydrogen is stored in an AB5 rare earth alloy metal hydride in a pressure vessel at 0.95 to 1.05 MPa and
between 20 and 60 ºC. This pressure vessel is external to and separate from the Fuel Cell System
pressure vessel [Maeda, et al., p. 3]. The metal hydride absorbs hydrogen at 0 ºC and discharges
hydrogen at 20 to 25 ºC [Sawa, et al., p. 5]. JAMSTEC also studied a BCC type metal hydride, but
ultimately chose the AB5 metal hydride based on its thermal characteristics [Sawa, et al., p. 5]. Oxygen
is stored in a compressed oxygen tank at 14.7 MPa [Maeda, et al., p. 3]. The volume of the storage tank is
0.5 m3 24 .
The Urashima FCEPS is hybridized using Li-Ion rechargeable batteries. Three cells are connected in
parallel [Ishibashi, et al.]. The battery system has a nominal voltage of 130 V and a capacity of 30 Ah
[Ishibashi, et al.], [Yamamoto, et al., p. 3]. The Specific Energy of the battery system is 0.15 kW/kg
[Hyakudome, et al.].
Urashima was successfully sea-trialed with the MHI Fuel Cell System, but the group is now developing
an updated version of the Fuel Cell System 25 . No further information is available on the new system.
22 press release, “NASA Buys Hydrogenics Light Weight Fuel Cell Stack To Test For Potential Uses In Space,” 15-Nov-2004
23 David Bents (NASA Glenn Research Center), telephone conversation, 7-Oct-2005
24 Ikuo Yamamoto, conversation with Gwyn Griffiths, week of 26-Sep-2005
25 Ikuo Yamamoto, email communication, 22-Jun-2005

Figure 7: Urashima Fuel Cell System [Maeda, et al., p. 3]
Teledyne 7 kW for NASA

The Teledyne Fuel Cell System was delivered to NASA for potential space applications. The reactants
are actively recirculated. The peak power to nominal power capability ratio is greater than 6:1. The
system is designed to utilize cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen storage 26 . Additional information is listed
in Table 3. The system has not been fully tested by NASA yet 27 .
UTC for 44" UUV

International Fuel Cells (IFC), which is now UTC Fuel Cells, developed a Fuel Cell System for a 44 inch
diameter UUV in the early 1990s [Rosenfeld]. A water circulation loop cooled the fuel cell and passively
humidified the PEM through controlled-porosity graphite flow fields [DeRonck]. Water was collected
internally to the power system and was periodically emptied to an external storage tank [DeRonck].
Reactants were not recirculated [Rosenfeld]. The system was orientation independent and was capable of
withstanding 200 to 250 G shock [DeRonck]. The fuel cell had a polarization of 0.8 V/cell at 300
mA/cm2 [Rosenfeld].
The full system was based on four 5 kW stacks, each of which could fit in a 21 inch diameter UUV. A 10
kW system (two stacks of 5 kW) was tested for 2000 hours including 1000 hours at full power
[Rosenfeld]. The information in Table 3 references the entire system (four stacks), which are presumably
connected in series.
26
James Braun, telephone conversation, 1-Jul-2005
27
“Proton-Exchange-Membrane Fuel Cell Powerplants Developed and Tested for Exploration Missions,”
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RP/RPC-hoberecht.html, accessed 12-Oct-2005

Zongshen PEM Power Systems
Zongshen is designing 1 kW, 2 kW, and 5 kW H2/O2 Fuel Cell Systems for availability in 2006.
Hydrogen flow is dead-ended and oxygen is purged. The stacks are water cooled 28 . No further
information is available at this time.
Other Applications
Perry Technologies developed PC14, a two-person submarine in 1989 powered by a 3 kW Ballard fuel
cell system [Baumert and Epp], [Geiger and Jollie, p. 29]. This was the first fuel cell powered submarine.
Perry Technologies later became Energy Partners and was then bought by Teledyne [Geiger and Jollie, p.
29]. Presumably, the fuel cell technology and expertise is now owned by Teledyne and Ballard.
Ballard Power Systems was contracted by the Canadian Maritime Command from 1994 to 1998 to
produce 50 kW and 250 kW Fuel Cell Systems for submarine use [Geiger and Jollie, p. 8]. No additional
information is available on that project.
FMV (Försvarets Materielverk) in Sweden investigated PEM fuel cells for submarines in the 1990s, but
the work was discontinued due to high projected cost of the fuel cells [Geiger and Jollie, p. 20].
Pennsylvania State University’s Applied Research Laboratory and the US Army Research Laboratory’s
Energy Science and Power Systems Division investigated the use of a Fuel Cell System in the Seahorse
UUV, which has a 38 inch diameter [Keeter]. A 400 W PEM Fuel Cell System was used as basis for
projecting performance along with other potential power systems. Hydrogen was provided from onboard
fuel processing. Oxygen was stored in lithium perchlorate (LiClO4). The Fuel Cell System was never
operated in the Seahorse UUV. The conclusion was that Solid Oxide Fuel Cells are a better match given
the limited volume available in UUVs; however, the reasoning has not been explained 29, 30 .
Bertin Technologies is evaluating a 200 kW fuel cell for a French submarine, and is involved in
developing components for that fuel cell [Baker and Jollie, p. 14], 31 . Bertin is also designing a 2 kW fuel
cell stack for underwater vehicles, in partnership with ECA and Ifremer (French Research Institute for
Exploitation of the Sea) 32 . No further information is available on those projects at this time.
Purdue University is simulating a 500 kW regenerative Fuel Cell System for a solar high altitude helium-
filled aircraft. The project is funded by the US Air Force Research Laboratory 33 . No information is
available on a fuel cell supplier for the project.
28
http://www.zongshenpem.com/products/, accessed 12-Oct-2005
29
http://www.engr.psu.edu/h2e/Pub/Peters/Peters_2.htm, accessed 11-Oct-2005
30
Tom Hughes, email communication, 22-Jun-2005
31
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryDirectory/IndustryDirectoryExternal/IndustryDirectoryDisplayCompany/0
,4591,2234,00.html, accessed 18-Oct-2005
32
33
Press release, http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050321.Sullivan.airship.html, 21-March-2005

The Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau, a part of the Russian government, is developing a fuel cell for
a Russian Amur 1650 class submarine [Geiger and Jollie, p. 29], and 34 . The project is in the early stages
and no information is available on the fuel cell at this time.
34

Efficiency at Maximum Continuous
Maximum Continuous Power (kW)
Cathode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Minimum Continuous Power (kW)
Maximum Operating Voltage (V)
Anode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Minimum Operating Voltage (V)
Cell Degradation Rate (µV/hr)
Operating temperature (°C)
Degree of Oxidant Purity

Specific Power (kW/kg)
Current density (A/cm2)

Power Density (kW/L)
Degree of Fuel Purity
Maximum Efficiency
Rated Current (A)
Rated voltage (V)
Peak Power (kW)

Active area (cm2)
Stack or System?
Number of cells
Diameter (m)
Volume (L)
Description
Length (m)
Height (m)
Width (m)
Mass (kg)
Symbol
Power
Helion 20
35
1 kW stack 0.125 0.182 20.00 110.0 160.0 N/A 0.690 0.470 0.335
Lynntech
Gen IV
Flightweigh
t 5 kW for 54%
Helios 36, 37, 99.99 99.99 @
38
2 stack 0.250 0.263 5.00 19.0 20.0 0.254 N/A N/A 0.406 200 64 64 0.5 57.2 9% 9% 0.536 70A
Nedstack 5
kWe-
39
3 A200 stack 0.357 0.505 5.00 9.9 14.0 N/A 0.180 0.250 0.220 200 30 18 278 1.39
Nedstack 10
kWe-
40
4 A200 stack 0.357 0.419 10.00 23.9 28.0 N/A 0.180 0.250 0.530 200 60 36 278 1.39
Nedstack 20
kWe-
41
5 A200 stack 0.357 0.473 20.00 42.3 56.0 N/A 0.180 0.250 0.940 200 120 72 278 1.39
35
press release, “AREVA develops the first French 20 kW fuel cell stack,”
http://www.areva.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=arevagroup_en%2FPressRelease%2FPressReleaseFullTemplate&cid=1095412362058, December 8, 2004
36
[Velev, et al.]
37
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ERAST, accessed 12-Oct-2005
38
[Garcia]
39
product literature, "PEM fuel cell stacks Nedstack 5 kWe – A200," http://www.nedstack.com/pdf/Nedstack_05-A200.pdf, April 2005
40





Maximum Efficiency
Rated Current (A)
Rated voltage (V)
Peak Power (kW)

Active area (cm2)
Stack or System?
Number of cells
Diameter (m)
Volume (L)
Description
Length (m)
Height (m)
Width (m)
Mass (kg)
Symbol
Power
Siemens 75%
BZM 34 42, FC @
43
6 system 0.052 0.102 34.00 334.1 650.0 N/A 0.480 0.480 1.450 1163 72 52.3 50 55 1.76 650 0.56 68 80 0.23 0.26 59% 25A
99.99
Siemens %; no
BZM 120 44, FC 120.0 S or 99.5
45, 46
7 system 0.133 0.257 0 466.4 900.0 N/A 0.500 0.530 1.760 1163 320 215 208 243 1.76 560 0.48 240 80 CO % 0.23 0.26 56%
ZSW BZ 50 to
47
8 100 100W stack 0.022 0.039 0.10 2.5 4.5 N/A 0.140 0.140 0.130 100 2.4 41.7 0.42 60 0.2 0.2
ZSW BZ 50 to
48
9 100 250W stack 0.042 0.071 0.25 3.5 5.9 N/A 0.140 0.140 0.180 100 6 41.7 0.42 60 0.2 0.2
ZSW BZ 50 to
49
10 100 500W stack 0.059 0.102 0.50 4.9 8.5 N/A 0.140 0.140 0.250 100 12 41.7 0.42 60 0.2 0.2
41
42
Siemens AG product literature, "SINAVYcis Application Potential," 2004, p. 4-6
43
[Strasser]
44
Siemens AG product literature, "SINAVYcis Application Potential," 2004, p. 4-6
45
[Hammerschmidt, 2003]
46
[Hammerschmidt and Lersch]
47
product literature, "Electrochemical Hydrogen Technology (ECW) PEM-Fuel-Cells," http://www.zsw-bw.de/en/docs/products/pdfs/ECW_BZ_en.pdf, accessed 12-Oct-2005
48
49





Maximum Efficiency
Rated Current (A)
Rated voltage (V)
Peak Power (kW)

Active area (cm2)
Stack or System?
Number of cells
Diameter (m)
Volume (L)
Description
Length (m)
Height (m)
Width (m)
Mass (kg)
Symbol
Power
ZSW BZ 50 to
50
11 100 1 kW stack 0.074 0.131 1.00 7.6 13.6 N/A 0.140 0.140 0.390 100 24 41.7 0.42 60 0.2 0.2
Electroche
m 1 kW for FC
51
- NASA system 1.00 N/A 232 45 0.11 6
Honeywell
5.25 kW for
52
- NASA stack 5.25
Hydrogenic
s 5 kW for
53
- NASA stack 5.00
MHI for
Urashima 54 , FC 60 to
55 56
- , system 0.011 4.20 381.7 0.900 0.900 N/A N/A 120 35 1.2 80 54%
50
51
“Proton-Exchange-Membrane Fuel Cell Powerplants Developed and Tested for Exploration Missions,” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RP/RPC-hoberecht.html, accessed 12-Oct-2005
52
[Perez-Davis, et al.]
53
press release, “NASA Buys Hydrogenics Light Weight Fuel Cell Stack To Test For Potential Uses In Space,” 15-Nov-2004
54
[Maeda, et al.]
55
[Tsukioka]
56
Tadahiro Hyakudome, email communication, 19-July-2005





Maximum Efficiency
Rated Current (A)
Rated voltage (V)
Peak Power (kW)

Active area (cm2)
Stack or System?
Number of cells
Diameter (m)
Volume (L)
Description
Length (m)
Height (m)
Width (m)
Mass (kg)
Symbol
Power
Nedstack
for
submarine 57 300.0
, 58
- stack 1.000 1.000 0 60%
5 as
deliv
ered;
7
Teledyne 7 under
kW for FC desig
59
- NASA system n N/A 302 82 30 0.270 12
UTC for
44" UUV 60, FC
61
- system 20.00 320 264 3 1.33 82.2 0.34 0.34 68%
Zongshen
PEM Power FC
62
- Systems system 5.00
57
[Baker and Jollie]
58
http://www.nedstack.com/, accessed 12-Oct-2005
59
"Proton-Exchange-Membrane Fuel Cell Powerplants Developed and Tested for Exploration Missions," http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/RP/RPC-hoberecht.html, accessed 12-Oct-2005
60 [DeRonck]
61 [Rosenfeld]
62 http://www.zongshenpem.com/products/, accessed 12-Oct-2005

-
Symbol
65
Description
ZSW for
64 [Geiger, 2002]
63 [Joerissen, et al.]
DeepC 63, 64, FC
Stack or System?
system
3.60
[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc]
Volume (L)
Table 3: H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell stacks and systems

Mass (kg)
Diameter (m)
Page 24
Height (m)
65 http://www.deepc-auv.de/deepc/englisch/e_home.html, accessed 20-Oct-2005

Width (m)
Length (m)
Active area (cm2)

100
Number of cells
120
Rated voltage (V)

72
10/27/2006
50
Rated Current (A)

0.50
Peak Power (kW)

Power
Maximum Efficiency
Design Tools and Methodology
Relationship of Specific Energy, Energy Density, and Buoyancy
Being that the most important attribute of the FCEPS is high energy storage, it is important to carefully
consider effects of design tradeoffs on Specific Energy (SE) and Energy Density (ED).
Specific Energy is energy per unit mass:

E (1)
SE =
m
Energy Density is energy per unit volume:

E (2)
ED =
V
Both metrics refer to the same quantity of energy, and density is Energy Density divided by Specific
Energy:
m ED (3)
D= =
V SE
When ED is plotted as a function of SE on x-y axes, the slope from the x-y intercept to any point is the
corresponding density at the point. Figure 8 shows this relationship. The dotted line represents the
density of seawater, or about 1.03 kg/L. Any point above the line has negative buoyancy, or is denser
than seawater. Any point below the line has positive buoyancy, or is less dense than seawater.

2
Negative Buoyancy
(denser than seawater)
1.5
Energy Density (kWh/L)
Positive Buoyancy
1 (less dense than seawater)
0.5
FCEPS SE/ED for Neutral Buoyancy

Change in SE/ED with Addition of Ballast
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Specific Energy (kWh/kg)
Figure 8: Specific Energy, Energy Density, and buoyancy
If a given FCEPS design did not have the required buoyancy as represented by the dotted line in Figure 8,
then ballast or float material would have to be added to the design in order to meet the buoyancy
requirement. Assuming the FCEPS mass and dimensions are limited, this ballast or float would displace
mass and volume otherwise available for FCEPS components, particularly energy storage. In the case of
negative buoyancy, floats would have to be added, occupying a large volume and a small mass. As a
result, the entire FCEPS (including floats) would have considerably less Energy Density and slightly less
Specific Energy. In the case of positive buoyancy, on the other hand, ballast would have to be added,
occupying a large mass and a small volume. As a result, the entire FCEPS would have considerably less
Specific Energy and slightly less Energy Density. This interaction is represented by the vectors in Figure
8. The vectors are based on a float density of 0.288 kg/L (corresponding to marine structural foam) and a
weight density 8.93 kg/L (copper). These values are used throughout this assessment.
Particular energy storage options can be evaluated using graphs as in Figure 8. Versions of the Energy
Density/Specific Energy graph have been used before for terrestrial applications where it is not important
to draw conclusions about density. One graph is shown in Figure 9 [Pinkerton and Wicke].

Figure 9: Gravimetric Energy Density as a function of Volumetric Energy Density for energy storage
mediums [Pinkerton and Wicke]
Since the UUV FCEPS must provide AIP, oxygen must be carried onboard as well as hydrogen.
Previously, oxygen storage has been evaluated in terms of weight (or mass efficiency):
stored oxygen mass
oxidizer system mass
and volumetric efficiency [Reader, et al., p. 884]:
stored oxygen mass
(LOX density × oxidizer system volume) .
Although the energy is considered to be stored in the hydrogen, the oxygen is an integral part of the
energy system as well. Instead of using weight efficiency and volume efficiency, oxygen storage can be
evaluated in terms of SE and ED based on the stoichiometric ratio of the fuel cell reaction.
Table 4 below summarizes the metrics for quantitatively expressing the effectiveness of hydrogen and
oxygen storage in terms of volume and mass.
Fuel Oxidant
Volume Energy Density ( ED H2 ) Energy Density at Stoichiometric
(kWh/L) Ratio ( ED O2 ) (kWh/L)
Mass Specific Energy ( SE H2 ) Specific Energy at Stoichiometric
(kWh/kg) Ratio ( SE O2 ) (kWh/kg)

Table 4: Hydrogen and oxygen storage metrics
Using the metrics in Table 4, it becomes possible to calculate the overall Storage System (hydrogen +
oxygen) Specific Energy and Energy Density:
SE H 2 SEO 2 (4)
SE SS =
SE H 2 + SEO 2
EDH 2 EDO 2 (5)

EDSS =
EDH 2 + EDO 2
If a product water storage tank is included in the Storage System, then the SE (energy produced divided
by mass of product water and tank) and ED (energy produced divided by volume of product water tank)
of the product water storage is included in the overall Storage System SE and ED calculations as shown
below. The need for a water storage tank is discussed in the Product Water Storage section on page 50.
1 (6)
ED SS =
1 1 1
+ +
ED H 2 EDO 2 ED H 2O
1 (7)
SE SS =
1 1 1
+ +
SE H 2 SE O 2 SE H 2O
The derivation of the equations above is included in Appendix A under Storage Metrics.
Relationship of Specific Power, Power Density, and Buoyancy

Substituting Power for Energy, the same relationship between Specific Power (SP), Power Density (PD),
and density exists as for SE, PE, and density as described above. This is a useful relationship for
designing the FCS or choosing among FCS options.
Just as the overall Storage System SE and ED can be determined from the SE and ED of Storage System
components (hydrogen storage, oxygen storage, and product water storage), the Specific Power (SP) and
Power Density (PD) of the FCS can be determined from the SP and PD of the FCS components. The
Specific Power is calculated as follows:
1 1 (8)
SPFCS = =
1 1 1 N
1
SPComp1
+
SPComp 2
+ ... +
SPCompN ∑ SP
n =1 Compn
The Power Density is calculated as follows:

1 1 (9)
PD FCS = =
1 1 1 N
1
+
PDComp1 PDComp 2
+ ... +
PDCompN ∑ PD
n =1 Compn

Impact of Efficiency on Net Energy
FCS Choice
Suppose that two Fuel Cell Systems (FCS0 and FCS1) are available that provide different energy
conversion efficiencies ( ε FCS 1 and ε FCS 0 ), but have different volumes ( V FCS 1 and V FCS 0 ) and masses
ε FCS1 − ε FCS 0 m FCS1 − m FCS 0 ε − ε FCS 0 VFCS1 − VFCS 0
( m FCS 1 and m FCS 0 ). If > and FCS1 > , then
ε FCS1 mSS 0 ε FCS1 VSS 0
FCS1 will provide a net usable FCEPS energy benefit over FCS0. Here, m SS 0 and VSS 0 are the mass and
volume of the Storage System in the FCEPS design with FCS0. The assumption is made that the Storage
System SE and ED will not change with the selection of the new FCS. The derivation of this tradeoff is
given in Appendix A under FCS Choice.
Additional FCS Components

Suppose a new component or system enhancement is available that will increase the efficiency of the
FCEPS, but will add additional mass and volume. The overall FCEPS volume and mass cannot change
with the addition of the new component because the FCEPS has fixed size and density. This means that
the additional mass and volume introduced by the new component must be offset in a reduction of mass
and volume from the Storage System, ballast, and floats. If 1 −

ε FCS 0 V
> New
(D B − D New )
, then
ε FCS 1 V SS 0 (D B − D SS )
the new component or system enhancement will increase the net usable energy of the FCEPS. The
variables are defined as follows:
V New Volume of new component
VSS 0 Initial volume of Storage System
D New Density of new component
DSS Density of Storage System
DB Density of ballast or floats
ε FCS 0 Initial FCS efficiency
ε FCS 1 FCS efficiency with new component
The statement is based on the following assumptions:

The Storage System Energy Density is the same with and without the new component.
The Storage System density is the same with and without the new component.
The ballast or float density is the same with and without the new component.
DSS ≠ DB . If DSS = DB , then it would be more effective to increase the size of the Storage System and
remove the ballast or floats anyway.
The derivation of this tradeoff is given in Appendix A under FCS Choice. Figure 10 shows this tradeoff
graphically in terms of volume.

Volume:
Original FCEPS
DNew = DSS
DSS < DNew < DB OR

DSS > DNew > DB
DNew = DB
FC System Storage System New Component Ballast
Figure 10: Effect of additional FCEPS component on Storage System volume
Concept Design Steps

The following steps provide a method for generating FCEPS design concepts which specify high-level
system considerations such as reactant storage type and size, FCS choice, etc:
1. Determine mO and VO , the mass and volume of overhead FCEPS components (structure,
insulation, etc.), based on thermal, pressure, and other requirements.
2. Choose the FCS option.
a. Choose the FCS concept with the highest Specific Power and Power Density at seawater
FCS density. This can be done graphically on a plot of SP and PD with contour lines
overlaid as will be shown in Figure 21.
b. Determine the volume and mass of the FCS at the required FCEPS Specific Power and
Power Density levels.
(
max PDFCEPS_REQVFCEPS , SPFCEPS_REQ m FCEPS ) (10)
VFCS =
PDFCS
PDFCS (11)
mFCS = VFCS ⋅
SPFCS
3. Determine the desired Storage System density based on the remaining volume and mass available
in the FCEPS.
V SS _ Desired = V FCEPS − V FCS − VO (12)
m SS _ Desired = m FCEPS − m FCS − mO (13)

mSS _ Desired (14)
DSS _ Desired =
VSS _ Desired
4. Choose the Storage System concept with the highest Specific Energy and Energy Density at the
desired Storage System density. This can be done graphically on a plot of SE and ED with
contour lines overlaid as will be shown in Figure 18, for example. It can also be done
numerically using Equations 75 and 76 by comparing the adjusted Specific Energy values of each
Storage System option once the required ballast or floats are included. Here, DSS is the density
of the Storage System without the ballast and floats. DB is the density of the ballast (if
DSS < DSS _ Desired ) or floats (if DSS > DSS _ Desired ). SE SS _ B and EDSS _ B are the net Specific
Energy and Energy Density of the Storage System and ballast/floats required to bring the FCEPS
to the desired density, DSS _ Desired . . EDSS is the Energy Density of the Storage System option
(without ballast or floats included). These equations are derived and defined in Appendix A
under Equivalent Specific Energy and Energy Density at Desired Density.
⎛ DB ⎞ (75)
EDSS ⎜1 − ⎟
⎜ D ⎟
SE SS _ B = ⎝ SS _ Desired ⎠
(DSS − DB )
EDSS _ B = SE SS _ B DSS _ Desired (76)

5. Choose and size the ballast or floats.
a. Choose ballast or floats based on whether positive or negative buoyancy is required to
bring the FCEPS to neutral buoyancy.
If DSS > DSS _ Desired then floats must be added ( D B < DSS ).
If D SS < DSS _ Desired then ballast must be added ( DB > DSS ).
If DSS = D SS _ Desired then ballast and floats are not needed.

b. Determine the volume and mass of the ballast or floats required to bring the FCEPS to
neutral buoyancy. These equations are derived and defined in Appendix A under
Ballast/Float Sizing.
mFCS + mO + DSS (VFCEPS − VFCS − VO ) − mFCEPS (81)
VB =
DSS − DB
m B = VB DB (82)
6. Determine the net FCEPS Specific Energy and Energy Density given the volume and mass
available for the Storage System and the FCS efficiency.
VSS = VFCEPS − VFCS − VO − VB (15)
m SS = m FCEPS − m FCS − mO − m B (16)

EDSS VSS (17)
EDFCEPS = ε FCS
VFCEPS
SE SS mSS (18)
SE FCEPS = ε FCS
m FCEPS
7. Iterate the FCS choice.
a. If ballast or floats were required, then attempt to choose another FCS with a density
( DFCS ) that eliminates or reduces the need for ballast/floats.
i. Repeat 2.a, selecting the FCS with the highest Specific Power and Power Density
m FCEPS − m SS − mO
at DFCS _ Desired = instead of seawater density.
VFCEPS − VSS − VO
ii. Repeat 2.b through 6 to evaluate the FCEPS with the new FCS.
b. Attempt to choose alternative FCSs with densities ( DFCS ) that complement the densities
of each of the unselected SS options with both higher SE and ED than the selected SS
option and associated ballast or floats.
i. Repeat 2.a, selecting the FCS with the highest Specific Power and Power Density
m FCEPS − m SSn − mO
at DFCS _ Desired = instead of seawater density.
VFCEPS − VSSn − VO
c. If any unselected FCSs present a potential advantage due to higher operating efficiency
ε FCS 1 − ε FCS 0 m FCS 1 − m FCS 0
than the selected FCS ( > or
ε FCS 1 m SS
ε FCS1 − ε FCS 0 V − VFCS 0
> FCS1 ), then for each:
ε FCS1 VSS
i. Select the new FCS in 2.a.
8. Choose the FCEPS with the highest SE and ED from 7.a, 7.b, and 7.c7.c. Compare the Power
and Energy capabilities of the conceptual FCEPS to the requirements.
Rechargeable Battery Energy/Power System (RBEPS)

In order to provide a fair benchmark for the FCEPS design concepts, an assessment of lithium based
rechargeable batteries is included here. Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) and Lithium Ion Polymer (Li-Poly) batteries
are chosen as a comparison because they are being heavily considered as alternatives to the Silver-Zinc
(Ag-Zn) secondary and Lithium Thionyl Chloride (Li-SOCL2) primary batteries currently used in UUVs
[Egan]. Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries are seen as preferable to Ag-Zn batteries due to their lower life-cycle
cost [Gitzendanner et al.]. Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) and offer the highest ED of any COTS rechargeable
battery technology, and have competitive SE to Ag-Zn batteries 66, and [Gitzendanner et al.]. Primary
battery systems such as Lithium Thionyl Chloride (Li-SOCL2) are not considered here because of their
high recurring cost as compared to a FCEPS.
66
Yardney Technical Products, Inc. “Sec 10 Li-ion Battery Technology – Secondary Cells,” 2003 Battery Technology Workshop

The density of a RBEPS must be considered just as the FCEPS. Typically, battery systems are denser
than seawater, so floats or void space must be added at a loss to ED. In the design of a Li-Ion battery
system for the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), the cells filled the available volume and caused
the battery to be overweight [Gitzendanner et al.].
The Li-Ion and Li-Poly cells considered in this assessment are small (much less than 1 kg), with the
exception of the Guangzhou Markyn Battery and Valence Technology models. Multiple cells are used to
fill the available volume and mass. It has been stated that larger Li-Ion cells have SE values up to 200
Wh/kg, but suppliers for such cells was not found [Gitzendanner et al.]. Regardless, the supporting
system (thermal management and electrical interconnects) will decrease the overall SE and ED from the
SE and ED values for any individual cells, and the supporting system is not considered here. The cell
packaging is considered to be perfect (no unused space).
Some approximations and assumptions were made in order to make a first cut among the numerous
battery models available. The stored energy was assumed to be the published nominal voltage (v) times
the nominal capacity (Ah). Supplier specified energy storage values were not used because of the
inconsistent methods of determining these values. Only the batteries with sufficient available data
(nominal voltage, capacity, mass, dimensions, and discharge curves) were considered. Among the models
of the same type (Li-Ion cylindrical, Li-Ion prismatic, or Li-Poly prismatic) from a single supplier, the
batteries with significantly worse SE and ED at neutral buoyancy (1.03 kg/L) were excluded. Battery
capacity data was taken from the published nominal capacity. The published capacity values were
generally measured between C/5 and C/5.75 discharge rates, with the exception of the Guangzhou
Markyn Battery models, which were measured at C/2 or C/2.4. This may have contributed to the slightly
worse SE and ED values for the Guangzhou Markyn models. The batteries are listed in Table 5 and the
SE and ED values are plotted in Figure 11. As shown by the graph, the density of Li-Ion and Li-Poly
batteries is significantly greater than seawater density.

Battery ED/SE and Density
0.5
O Color Type
A Li-Ion cylindrical
K Li-Ion prismatic
J
Li-Poly prismatic
E
0.4 P
Q Target Density
D (1.03 kg/L)
B Contour of equivalent
I C Specific Energy at
L
N
Y Z M
R Target Density
S Requirements
0.3
U
G
F H
0.2 V
W
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2
Figure 11: SE and ED of rechargeable lithium battery options
Sym- Company & Model SE ED Type & Shape

bol (kWh/ (kWh/
kg) L)
A EEMB LIR18650 67 0.177 0.465 Li-Ion cylindrical
B EEMB LIR053436A 68 0.163 0.355 Li-Ion prismatic
C EEMB LIR063048A 69 0.166 0.346 Li-Ion prismatic
D EEMB LIR103450A 70 0.162 0.380 Li-Ion prismatic
E EEMB LP383450 71 0.184 0.412 Li-Poly prismatic
F Guangzhou Markyn Battery PL10ICP11/106/58-3 72 0.117 0.211 Li-Poly prismatic
67
"Lithium ion Battery LIR18650 Brief Datasheet," http://eemb.com/PDF/LIR/LIR18650%20Brief.pdf, downloaded 15-Nov-
2005
68
"Lithium ion Battery LIR053436A Brief Datasheet," http://eemb.com/PDF/LIR/LIR053436A%20Brief.pdf, downloaded 16-
Nov-2005
69
Nov-2005
70
Nov-2005
71
"Lithium ion Polymer Battery LP383450 Brief Datasheet," http://eemb.com/PDF/Lp/Lp383450%20Brief.pdf, downloaded 16-
Nov-2005

G Guangzhou Markyn Battery PL10ICP08/106/58-3 73 0.116 0.218 Li-Poly prismatic
H Guangzhou Markyn Battery PL10ICP06/83/116-3 74 0.131 0.208 Li-Poly prismatic
I Huanyu Power Source HLP063040 75 0.162 0.346 Li-Ion prismatic
J Huanyu Power Source HLP053467 76 0.166 0.439 Li-Ion prismatic
K Huanyu Power Source HLC18650 77 0.161 0.447 Li-Ion cylindrical
L Huanyu Power Source HYPL-053759 78 0.154 0.339 Li-Poly prismatic
M Huanyu Power Source HYPL-395370 79 0.155 0.332 Li-Poly prismatic
N Huanyu Power Source HYPL-383562 80 0.154 0.337 Li-Poly prismatic
O Panasonic CGR18650D 81 0.188 0.478 Li-Ion cylindrical
P Panasonic CGA5234361 82 0.176 0.402 Li-Ion prismatic
Q Panasonic CGA103450A 83 0.180 0.393 Li-Ion prismatic
R Saft MP 176065 84 0.165 0.325 Li-Ion prismatic
S Ultralife Batteries UBP543048/PCM 85 0.168 0.307 Li-Ion prismatic
T Ultralife Batteries UBP463048/PCM 86 0.153 0.257 Li-Ion prismatic
U Ultralife Batteries UBC425085 87 0.156 0.287 Li-Poly prismatic
V Ultralife Batteries UBC641730 88 0.164 0.192 Li-Poly prismatic
72
"PL10ICP11/106/58-3 Data Sheet," http://www.gmbattery.com/production/dl/cpNew/PL10ICP11-106_58_3.pdf, downloaded
30-Nov-2005
73
"PL10ICP08/106/58-3 Data Sheet," http://www.gmbattery.com/production/dl/cpNew/PL10ICP08-106-58-3.pdf, downloaded
30-Nov-2005
74
"PLC10ICP06/83/116-3 Data Sheet," http://www.gmbattery.com/production/dl/cpNew/PL10ICP06_83_116-3.pdf,
downloaded 15-Nov-2005
75
"Huanyu Battery Specifications HLP063040," http://www.huanyubattery.com/load/HLP063040.pdf, downloaded 16-Nov-2005
76
" Huanyu Battery Specifications HLP053467," http://www.huanyubattery.com/load/HLP053467.pdf, downloaded 16-Nov-
2005
77
" Huanyu Battery Specifications HLC18650," http://www.huanyubattery.com/load/HLC18650.pdf, downloaded 16-Nov-2005
78
" Huanyu Battery Specifications HYPL-053759," http://www.huanyubattery.com/load/HYPL-053759.pdf, downloaded 16-
Nov-2005
79
Nov-2005
80
Nov-2005
81
"Lithium Ion Batteries: Individual Data Sheet CGR18650D,"
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGR18650D.pdf, June 2005
82
"Lithium Ion Batteries: Individual Data Sheet CGA523436,"
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGA523436.pdf, November 2003
83
"Lithium Ion Batteries: Individual Data Sheet CGA103450A,"
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGA103450A.pdf, November 2003
84
"Rechargeable lithium-ion battery MP 176065," Doc. No 54037-2-0305, http://www.saftamerica.com/120-Techno/20-
10_produit.asp?paramtechnolien=20-10_lithium_system.asp&paramtechno=Lithium+systems&Intitule_Produit=MP,
downloaded 18-Nov-2005
85
"UBP543048/PCM Technical Datasheet," http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/documents/techsheets/UBI-5092_UBP543048.pdf,
UBI-5092 REV F, 25-Jul-2005
86
"UBP463048/PCM Technical Datasheet," http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/documents/techsheets/UBI-5105_UBP463048.pdf,
UBI-5105 REV E, 25-Jul-2005
87
"UBC425085 Technical Datasheet," http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/documents/techsheets/UBI-5127_UBC425085.pdf,
UBI-5127 REV C, 25-Jul-2005

W Ultralife Batteries UBC422030 89 0.139 0.181 Li-Poly prismatic
X Valence Technology U27-FN130 90 0.100 0.136 Li-Ion prismatic
Y Wuhan Lixing (Torch) Power Sources LIR17335 91 0.136 0.331 Li-Ion cylindrical
Z YOKU Energy Technology Limited 653135 92 0.145 0.328 Li-Poly prismatic
Table 5: Lithium rechargeable battery options
Using the approximated SE and ED values described above, the batteries with the best ED at required
density values over the range of 0.3 kg/L to 3.5 kg/L were chosen. The Ultralife Batteries model
UBC641730 battery (symbol V) has the highest ED at required densities below approximately 1.20 kg/L,
and the Panasonic model CGR18650D battery (symbol O) has the highest ED at required densities above
that value.
These two battery models, Ultralife Batteries UBC641730 and Panasonic CGR18650D, were more
closely evaluated. It was important to consider the energy available from the batteries at the required
discharge rate, as heat losses increase as the discharge rate increases. The manufacturer discharge curves
graphs were numerically integrated to verify the energy storage at the appropriate discharge rate. In order
to fairly compare the RBEPS to the FCEPS using the Siemens BZM 34 FCS, a continuous power demand
of 34 kW was considered. This power demand was divided by the number of cells in the RBEPS concept
at each required density value. The resulting cell power was divided by the discharge cutoff voltage for
the battery model of interest, giving a discharge current value. In all but the RBEPS concepts for required
densities of 0.3 to 0.6 kg/L, the discharge rate was smaller than that of the lowest published discharge
curve, and the lowest published discharge curve was used. The most appropriate discharge curve graph
was numerically integrated to find the final energy value for comparison to the FCEPS. Note that if data
was available for lower discharge rates, it would yield slightly higher energy values for the RBEPS.
One notable characteristic of Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries is capacity fade over the life of the battery. As
the battery ages, the electrical storage capacity decreases. This is usually expressed in terms of % fade
per charge/discharge cycle. Figure 12 shows the capacity fade of the Ultralife Batteries model
UBC641730, which is fairly typical. Capacity fade is shown as 80% at 500 cycles, and specified as > 300
cycles to 80% at the C/5 charge/discharge rate 93 . Full charge/discharge cycles have a more significant
impact on capacity fade than partial charge/discharge cycles, and battery suppliers sometimes quote the
cycle life with 80% Depth Of Discharge (DOD), rather than 100% DOD 94 , 95 , 96 . However, the usage
profile of a UUV RBEPS would likely require nearly full charge/discharge cycles.
88
UBI-5113 REV C, July 25, 2005
89
UBI-5116 REV C, 25-Jul-2005
90
"UCharge Family Datasheet," http://www.valence-tech.com/pdffiles/U-Charge_Datasheet.pdf, v.0.98, downloaded 30-Nov-
2005
91
http://www.lisun.com/2/asppd/Product6.htm, accessed 30-Nov-2005
92
http://www.yokuenergy.com/doce/products.asp, accessed 30-Nov-2005
93
"UBC641730 Technical Datasheet," http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/datasheet.php?ID=UBC005, July 25, 2005
94
Isidor Buchmann, "How to prolong lithium-based batteries," http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm, 2005
95
"Saphion Rechargeable Lithium Ion Battery IFR18650e," http://www.valence-tech.com/ucharge.asp, downloaded 15-Nov-
2005

Figure 12: Capacity fade of Ultralife UBC641730 97
Li-Poly cells can operate at up to 60 MPa with 90% of the rated capacity as at atmospheric pressure
[Rutherford]. This corresponds to a depth of about 5940 m at a seawater density of 1.03 kg/L. This may
be desirable in a RBEPS design; however, the Li-Poly cells must be maintained at a suitable operating
temperature [Rutherford].
Fuel Cell Energy/Power System (FCEPS)

Storage System
Hydrogen Storage
This UUV FCEPS assessment considers four types of hydrogen storage: compressed, liquid, metal
hydride, and chemical hydride. There are other hydrogen storage approaches that are currently excluded.
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have not been included yet because of the high complexity and overhead mass
and volume associated with fuel reformation to condition the fuel for use with PEM fuel cells. Carbon
nanostructures have not yet been demonstrated on a practical scale [Pinkerton and Wicke, p. 24]. Glass
microspheres have also been mentioned, but no complete systems seem to be available 98 .
The LHV of hydrogen is 33.32 kWh/kg. This sets an upper bound on the SE of hydrogen storage, which
is the mass of the hydrogen itself without any tank mass or mass of other chemical elements.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 plot a set of hydrogen storage options on the SE and ED graph discussed in the
Relationship of Specific Energy, Energy Density, and Buoyancy section. On the graphs, ideal options are
those which do not take into account the full storage system, for instance, the theoretical density of
hydrogen gas at 700 atm. Complete system options include the storage tank and supporting equipment.
Table 6 lists the hydrogen storage options that have been included on the graphs.
96
"UCharge Family Datasheet," http://www.valence-tech.com/pdffiles/U-Charge_Datasheet.pdf, v.0.98, downloaded 30-Nov-
2005
97
"UBC641730 Technical Datasheet," http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/datasheet.php?ID=UBC005, July 25, 2005
98
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hydrogen_storage.html, accessed 25-Oct-2005

Hydrogen Storage ED/SE and Density
Color Type
5 U
compressed
liquid
metal hydride
chemical hydride
Fill CompIdeal
4 G E ideal
AD complete system
H
Obj Target Density

3 A (1.03 kg/L)
Contour of equivalent
Specific Energy at
I
Target Density
B Requirements
J
2 F
OK AB
X
AC
S
AA R C
D
1 Y
Z N
W L
P
M
Q
VT
Thresh
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Specific Energy (kW h/kg)
Figure 13: SE and ED of hydrogen storage options (all options)
Hydrogen Storage ED/SE and Density

2
F
K Color Type
AB
compressed
liquid
X metal hydride
chemical hydride
Fill CompIdeal
ideal
complete system
AA R
Target Density
(1.03 kg/L)
1 Y
Specific Energy at
Target Density
N Requirements
Z
W L
PM
Q
T
V
Thresh
0
0 1 2 3 4
Specific Energy (kW h/kg)

Figure 14: SE and ED of hydrogen storage options (complete systems only)

Symbol Description Specific Energy Type
Energy Density
(kWh/kg) (kWh/L)
A Ideal 700 atm H2 at LOX temp 99 33.32 3.05 Compressed
B Ideal liquid H2 100 33.32 2.36 Liquid
C Ideal 700 atm H2 101 33.32 1.26 Compressed
D Ideal mass Linde 102 33.32 1.18 Liquid
E Ideal lithium hydride (60%) slurry 103 5.10 3.94 chemical hydride
F Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system 104 3.36 1.95 chemical hydride
G Ideal Ca metal ammine 105 3.23 4.00 chemical hydride
H Ideal Mg metal ammine 106 3.03 3.67 chemical hydride
I Ideal sodium borohydride (by wt: 35% NaBH_4; 3% NaOH; 2.50 2.57 chemical hydride
62% H_2O) 107
J Ideal sodium borohydride (by wt: 30% NaBH_4; 3% NaOH; 2.13 2.20 chemical hydride
67% H_2O) 108
K Magna Steyr Liquid H2 109 2.05 1.86 Liquid
L TUFFSHELL 539L 110 2.04 0.69 Compressed
M Dynetek V174 111 1.82 0.59 Compressed
N TUFFSHELL 118L 112 1.80 0.82 Compressed
99
based on the Beattie-Bridgeman equation and constants presented in Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48]
100
Based on liquid H2 density [Züttel, p. 25]
101
based on the Beattie-Bridgeman equation and constants presented in Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48]
102
"Liquid Hydrogen Storage," http://www.euweb.de/fuel-cell-bus/storage.htm, accessed 24-Jun-2005
103
[McClaine, p 11]
104
[McClaine, p 11]
105
[Christensena, et al.]
106
[Christensena, et al.]
107
"Millennium Cell Hydrogen on Demand Fact Sheet," www.millenniumcell.com, 2/03 R, downloaded 26-Jul-2005
108
109
http://www.magnasteyr.com/frames.php?seite=http%3A//www.magnasteyr.com/automobilentwicklung/1342_ENG_HTML.asp, accessed Jun-2005
110
"TUFFSHELL H2 Fuel Tanks Product Information," http://www.lincolncomposites.com/media/Tuffshell%20h2%20facts.pdf, downloaded 20-Jun-2005
111
"DyneCell® Lightweight Fuel Storage Systems," http://www.dynetek.com/pdf/350.pdf, February 2004
112

O Ideal sodium borohydride (by wt: 25% NaBH_4; 3% NaOH; 1.77 1.83 chemical hydride
72% H_2O) 113
P Dynetek W205 114 1.74 0.60 Compressed
Q SCI ALT909 115 1.71 0.56 Compressed
R GM HydroGen3 liquid 116 1.62 1.22 Liquid
S Ideal sodium borohydride (by wt: 20% NaBH_4; 3% NaOH; 1.43 1.47 chemical hydride
77% H_2O) 117
T SCI ALT898 118 1.12 0.44 compressed
U Ideal Mg_2FeH_6 (Type A_2B) and Al(BH_4)_3 119 0.97 5.00 metal hydride
V Faber Industrie 20 MPa 120 0.77 0.40 compressed
W Faber Industrie 45 MPa 121 0.58 0.67 compressed
X Ovonic Onboard Solid H2 122 0.52 1.67 metal hydride
Y HCI SOLID-H BL-750: Alloy H 123 0.38 1.01 metal hydride
Z Hydrocell HC-MH1200 124 0.30 0.77 metal hydride
AA H Bank HB-SG02-0500-N 125 0.28 1.21 metal hydride
AB TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp 126 , 127 3.75 1.82 compressed
AC Ideal NASA spherical liquid H2 128 33.32 1.57 liquid
113
114
"DyneCell® Lightweight Fuel Storage Systems," http://www.dynetek.com/pdf/350.pdf, February 2004
115
http://www.scicomposites.com/alternative_fuel_cylinders.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
116
" Technical Data of HyrdoGen3 liquid," http://www.gmeurope.com/marathon/downloads/factsheets/factsheet_hydrogen3_liquid.pdf, downloaded 2-Dec-2005
117
118
http://www.scicomposites.com/alternative_fuel_cylinders.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
119
[Züttel, p. 31]
120
"Faber Cylinders Dbase & Drawings," http://www.faber-italy.com/light/fullver.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
121
"Faber Cylinders Dbase & Drawings," http://www.faber-italy.com/light/fullver.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
122
[Young, Rosa C.]
123
“BL-750 Metal Hydride,” http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=17/product=133, accessed 2-Dec-2005
124
"HC-MH1200: A portable, low pressure metal hydride hydrogen storage," http://www.hydrocell.fi/en/pdf/HC-MH1200_brochure.pdf, downloaded 24-Jun-2005
125
http://www.hbank.com.tw/eg/pr2_07.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
126
127
Based on the Beattie-Bridgeman equation and constants presented in Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48]
128
[Moran, et al.]

AD Ideal LaNi_5 (AB_5) 129 , 130 0.47 3.83 metal hydride
Table 6: Hydrogen storage options
129
[Pettersson]
130
[Züttel, p. 31]

Compressed Hydrogen
The density of compressed hydrogen deviates from the ideal gas equation very significantly at high
pressures. At 10,000 psi, storage is only about two-thirds of what the ideal gas law predicts [Pinkerton
and Wicke]. Figure 15 shows the Energy Density of compressed hydrogen gas as a function of pressure
at room temperature (20 ºC) and 87 K (slightly below the liquid oxygen boiling point). The Beattie-
Bridgeman equation and constants are presented in Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48].
The values shown in Figure 15 are for the volume of the hydrogen itself, neglecting the volume occupied
by the walls of the storage tank and any impurities. At higher pressures, tank wall thickness will
generally need to increase, which lessens the Energy Density advantage of higher pressures. However,
the Energy Density advantage of higher pressures still exists. Product data for composite hydrogen tanks
indicates that higher pressure (10,000 psi as opposed to 5,000 psi) tanks have higher Energy Density, but
lower Specific Energy 131 .
Energy Density of Compressed H2 Gas

3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Energy Density (kWh/L) [Ideal Gas Law] @ 293.15 K

0.50 Energy Density (kWh/L) [Beattie-Bridgeman] @ 293.15 K
Energy Density (kWh/L) [Ideal Gas Law] @ 87 K
Energy Density (kWh/L) [Beattie-Bridgeman] @ 87 K

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pressure (MPa)
Figure 15: Energy Density of compressed hydrogen gas as a function of pressure
The maximum pressure of commercial off the shelf (COTS) compressed hydrogen tanks is 10,000 psi
(68.9 MPa). The overall density of compressed hydrogen systems is typically less than water, as shown
by the fact that the systems are generally below the dotted lines in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
131
"TUFFSHELL® H2 Fuel Tanks Product Information," Lincoln Composites, Inc., www.lincolncomposites.com, accessed 24-
Oct-2005

There is also the possibility of storing hydrogen as a cryogenically compressed gas [Powers]. Although
the specifications are not available on a complete system design for this temperature at this time, Figure
15 shows that there is a considerable advantage to cryo-compressed hydrogen storage. At liquid oxygen
temperature (87 K) and 700 atm, the theoretical or ideal ED is 3.05 kWh/L as opposed to 1.26 kWh/L at
20 ºC.
Liquid Hydrogen
The boiling point of hydrogen is 20.26 K [Young, Hugh D., ch. 15]. This presents considerable, but not
necessarily insurmountable, complications for the UUV FCEPS application. Thermal management would
have to be carefully considered given the heat generated by the fuel cell and present in seawater, all in
close proximity. Evaporation is an issue, but if the base evaporation rate is lower than the consumption
rate of hydrogen based on the power requirements of the UUV, then vaporized hydrogen gas can be
utilized rather than wasted.
Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.0708 kg/L [Züttel, p. 25]. This sets a maximum theoretical ED of
2.36 kWh/L. Liquid hydrogen is much less dense than water, and typically, liquid hydrogen tanks have a
density slightly less than water as well. This is shown by the graphs in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
Metal Hydride
Metal hydride storage systems typically have high ED, but low SE as evidenced by Figure 13 and Figure
14. These systems have a fairly high level of technical maturity, but require thermal management to
attain the proper temperatures for absorption and desorption of hydrogen. The temperatures depend on
the type of metal hydride used.
Chemical Hydride
Chemical hydrides typically have densities similar to water, as shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
Chemical hydride systems such as those based on lithium hydride promise relatively high SE and ED
[McClaine, et al.]. However, in general chemical hydride systems are at a low level of technical maturity
as compared to metal hydrides. Hydrogen is often stored in slurry that must be pumped and held in a
separate tank or tank partition after hydrogen is removed 132 .
Oxygen Storage
There are several classifications of oxygen storage, including compressed, liquid, and chemical. For the
purposes of this assessment, chlorate candles are treated as a separate classification. Even though
chlorate candles rely on a chemical reaction to release oxygen, chlorate candles are readily available in
COTS systems, while other chemical types of oxygen storage require some level of development and
integration in order to produce a complete Storage System.
The equivalent Specific Energy and Energy Density of oxygen storage options at the stoichiometric ratio
is slightly better than those for hydrogen. Nonetheless, oxygen storage is an important consideration as
well.
132
Millennium Cell, "Hydrogen on Demand Fact Sheet," www.millenniumcell.com, 2/03 R

There is an upper bound on the SE of oxygen storage based on the mass of the oxygen itself without any
tank mass or mass of other chemical elements. This can be calculated as follows:
MJ 1 mol H 2 1 1000 g 1 kWh kWh
SEO 2 = 0.24183 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = 4.20
mol H 2 1 mol O 16.00 g O/mol O 1 kg 3.6 MJ kg O
Figure 16 plots a set of oxygen storage options, which are listed in Table 7.
Oxygen Storage ED/SE and Density

4 Shape Type
11 compressed
6
liquid
1 chlorate candle
5
12 chemical
Fill CompIdeal
5 ideal
2 complete system
Target Density
7
10 (1.03 kg/L)
4
Specific Energy at
Target Density
18
Obj Requirements
3
3 14 9
8
19 6
21
16
2
17
22
20 15
1 13
25
23
24
Thresh
0
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 16: SE and ED of oxygen storage options

Symbol Description Specific Energy Type
Energy Density
(kWh/kg) (kWh/L)
1 Ideal liquid ozone (O_3) 133 4.20 5.68 chemical
2 Ideal LOX 134 4.20 4.79 liquid
3 Ideal 700 atm O_2 135 4.20 3.05 compressed
4 Liquid ozone (O_3) system (Directed Technologies study) 136 4.15 6.26 chemical
5 Ideal hydrogen peroxide (H_2O_2) 137 3.95 5.53 chemical
6 Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system 138 , 139 , 140 3.30 2.78 liquid
7 Ideal nitrogen tetroxide (N_2O_4) 141 2.92 4.23 chemical
8 Andonian Cryogenics LOX-425-V 142 2.90 2.88 liquid
9 Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V 143 2.89 2.98 liquid
10 Nitrogen tetroxide (N_2O_4) system (Directed Technologies 2.59 4.10 chemical
study) 144
11 Ideal lithium perchlorate (LiClO_4) 145 , 146 2.53 6.14 chlorate candle
133
Based on “Gas Data,” http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/products/gases/gasdata/index.asp?GasID=137, accessed 2-Dec-2005
134
Based on “Oxygen (O2) Properties and Uses,” http://www.uigi.com/oxygen.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
135
Based on the Beattie-Bridgeman equation and constants presented in Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48]
136
[James, p 10]
137
Based on “Hydrogen peroxide," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide, accessed 29-Sept-2005
138
[Griffiths]
139
[Griffiths, et al.]
140
“Fuel Cell Reactant Storage Systems,” http://www.sierralobo.com/technology/storage.shtml, accessed 13-Jul-2005
141
“Dinitrogen tetroxide,” http://www.answers.com/topic/nitrogen-tetroxide, accessed 2-Dec-2005
142
http://www.andoniancryogenics.com/Van_Tanks/van_tanks.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
143
http://www.andoniancryogenics.com/Van_Tanks/van_tanks.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
144
[James, p 10]
145
Based on “Safety (MSDS) data for lithium perchlorate, anhydrous,” http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/LI/lithium_perchlorate_anhydrous.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
27-Oct-06 UUV FCEPS Assessment and Design Part 1 p. 46 of 79

12 Ideal sodium superoxide (NaO_2) 147 2.44 5.38 chemical
13 Dynetek V260TDG233G5N 148 1.91 1.01 compressed
14 Ideal sodium chlorate (NaClO_3) 149 1.89 3.03 chlorate candle
15 SCI 604 150 1.68 1.09 compressed
16 Hydrogen peroxide (90% H_2O_2) system (Directed 1.61 2.09 chemical
Technologies study) 151
17 Sodium superoxide (NaO_2) system (Directed Technologies 1.61 1.55 chemical
study) 152
18 Molecular Products CAN 33 153 1.56 3.26 chlorate candle
19 Chlorate candle system (Directed Technologies study) 154 1.38 2.76 chlorate candle
20 SCI 295S 155 1.31 1.06 compressed
21 Molecular Products SCOG 26 156 1.26 2.20 chlorate candle
22 Hydrogen peroxide (66% H_2O_2) system (Directed 1.17 1.34 chemical
Technologies study) 157
23 Luxfer M265 158 0.89 0.70 compressed
146
Based on “Lithium perchlorate,” http://www.chemexper.com/chemicals/supplier/cas/7791-03-9.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
147
Based on http://www.webelements.com/webelements/compounds/text/Na/Na1O2-12034127.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
148
email communication from Dynetek Industries, Ltd., 28-Jun-2005
149
Based on http://www.kerr-mcgee.com/businesses/chemicals/chemprods/bus_ch_sodiumchlorate.htm, accessed July, 2005
150
“SCBA,” http://www.scicomposites.com/scba.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
151
[James, p 10]
152
[James, p 10]
153
“Chlorate Candle 33 Specifications,” http://www.molecularproducts.co.uk/v2/products/candle_33/specs.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
154
[James, p 10]
155
“SCBA,” http://www.scicomposites.com/scba.html, accessed 2-Dec-2005
156
"Chlorate Candle SCOG 26 Specifications," http://www.molecularproducts.co.uk/v2/products/candle_scog_26/specs.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
157
[James, p 10]
158
[Griffiths, et al.]

24 Mesa Specialty Gases & Equipment A030-HP Aluminum 159 0.89 0.60 compressed
25 Mesa Specialty Gases & Equipment 049-HP Steel 160 0.77 0.80 compressed
Table 7: Oxygen storage options
159
http://www.mesagas.com/CylinderSpecifications.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005
160
http://www.mesagas.com/CylinderSpecifications.htm, accessed 2-Dec-2005

Compressed Oxygen
Compressed oxygen gas density does not deviate from the ideal gas law as significantly as hydrogen at
the feasible storage pressures at room temperature. As with hydrogen, however, increasing pressure still
brings diminishing returns. At 10,000 psi, the oxygen density is 79% of that predicted by the ideal gas
law 161 . Figure 17 shows the Energy Density at the stoichiometric ratio for oxygen as a function of
pressure at room temperature (20 ºC). The Beattie-Bridgeman equation and constants are presented in
Physical Chemistry [Castellan, p. 46-48]. These values are for pure oxygen, neglecting the volume
occupied by the walls of the storage tank. At higher pressures, tank wall thickness will generally need to
increase, which lessens the Energy Density advantage of higher pressures. Also, gaseous oxygen is very
reactive at high pressures, and this poses a potential safety concern and constraints on the tank design
[Reader, et al., p. 885].
Energy Density of Compressed O2 Gas

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Energy Density at Stoich (kWh/L) [Ideal Gas Law] @ 293.15 K
Energy Density at Stoich (kWh/L) [Beattie-Bridgeman] @ 293.15 K
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pressure (MPa)
Figure 17: Energy Density of compressed oxygen gas as a function of pressure
Fewer lightweight compressed tanks are available for oxygen storage than for hydrogen. This is most
likely due to the fact that the demand for hydrogen tanks is for automobile applications, whereas the
demand for oxygen tanks comes from medical and SCUBA applications. Presumably, hydrogen tanks
could be adapted for oxygen storage.
161
based on the Beattie-Bridgemann equation [Castellan, p. 46-48]

Liquid Oxygen
The boiling point of oxygen is 90.18 K [Young, Hugh D., ch. 15]. This is warmer than the hydrogen
boiling point, but still imposes difficulties. Sierra Lobo, Inc. has designed a complete liquid oxygen
storage system for a 21” diameter UUV [Haberbusch].
Chlorate Candles
Once started, a chlorate candle continues producing oxygen until depleted. Chlorate candles are currently
used in submarine and emergency applications 162 , and [Reader, et al., p. 884]. Chlorate candles are very
stable and can produce oxygen under pressure. However, the rate of oxygen output of a given chlorate
candle is not adjustable during operation, and the reaction is not extinguishable once started. The output
rate of the chlorate candle may be higher than required by the fuel cell, so the oxygen delivery system
should be designed to buffer the oxygen. Sodium chlorate is most commonly used in chlorate candles,
but lithium perchlorate is also used. [Reader, et al., p. 884-886]
Other Chemical Oxygen Storage

Oxygen can also be stored in other chemical compounds such as hydrogen peroxide, nitrogen tetroxide,
and sodium superoxide. These systems must be designed and managed properly for safety considerations.
Product Water Storage

Assuming that the volume of the UUV does not change throughout the mission, the mass cannot change
either due to the constant buoyancy requirement. As a result, fuel cell product water cannot be exhausted
to the environment surrounding the UUV. For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that
product water must be stored in a tank separate from the hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks. Certain
Storage System options such as chemical hydride slurries may present the opportunity to store product
water within the reactant tank as the hydrogen is utilized, but this will be the exception rather than the
rule.
The hydrogen LHV is used as the basis of energy content in the FCEPS assessment. The mass of water
produced is:
0.242 MJ 1 mol H 2 1 1000 g 1 kWh kWh
SE H 2O = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = 3.73
mol H 2 1 mol H 2 O 18.015 g H 2 O / mol H 2 O 1 kg 3.600 MJ kg H 2 O
The volume of water produced is:
kWh 1 kg H 2 O kWh
EDH 2O = 3.73 ⋅ = 3.73
kg H 2 O 1 L H 2 O L H 2O
The value of 3.73 kWh/L can be entered into Equation 6 for calculating the overall system Energy
Density:
1 1
EDSStorage = =
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ + + +
EDH 2 EDO 2 EDH 2O EDH 2 EDO 2 3.73 kWh/L
162
"Joint Fleet Maintenance Manual Volume II, Integrated Fleet Maintenance List of Effective Pages", COMFLTFORCOMINST
4790.3 REV A CH-2, http://www.submepp.navy.mil/Jfmm/index.htm, p. II-I-3M-2

Product water storage may affect the hydrogen storage and oxygen storage choices due to the change in
storage system density.
The mass of the product water will not affect the overall Storage System Specific Energy because of mass
conservation. As mass leaves the storage tanks, it will enter the fuel cell and later the water storage tank.
It is assumed that the dry mass of the water storage tank is negligible. A lightweight expandable bladder
may suffice. However, the design must be carefully considered so that the FCEPS center of mass does
not shift significantly during the mission.
Integrated Storage System

The overall Storage System Energy Density will be asymptotic to 3.73 kWh/L. Even if the hydrogen and
oxygen could be stored in zero volume, the product water must still be stored:
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
ED SS = lim ED H 2 → ∞ , EDO 2 → ∞ ⎜
1 ⎟ = 3 .73 kWh
⎜ 1 1 1 ⎟ L
⎜ + + ⎟
kWh
⎜ ED H 2 ED O 2 3.73 ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
Any realistic values of EDH 2 and EDO 2 will reduce this overall Storage System Energy Density even
further.
An upper bound exists on overall Storage System Specific Energy as well. This is the mass of the
hydrogen and oxygen divided by the energy stored, which is the same as the SE of the product water
storage calculated above.
kWh
SE SS = SE H 2O = 3.73
kg
Another way to derive the upper bound of the Storage System SE is by entering the upper bounds of
SEH 2 and SEO 2 discussed above into Equation 4:
kWh kWh
33.32 ⋅ 4.20
SE H 2 SE O 2 kg kg kWh
SE SS = = = 3 . 73
SE H 2 + SE O 2 kWh kWh kg
33.32 + 4.20
kg kg
Figure 18 below plots the SE and ED of all the combinations of the hydrogen storage and oxygen storage
options discussed above, assuming product water storage does not require extra volume. Figure 19 plots
all of the combinations with product water storage volume included, but assuming that the product water
tank has negligible mass and wall volume. The data plots retain the same SE values, but have reduced
ED values. Figure 20 is the same as Figure 19, but filters out all storage combinations which include
ideal hydrogen and/or oxygen storage options (options which neglect the impact of tank and supporting
system mass and volume).

Storage System ED/SE and Density
3.5
Color H2Type
Obj compressed
liquid
3.0 metal hydride
U4 chemical hydride
U11
U1
Shape O2Type
U12 compressed
2.5 U2 liquid
U5 G11 E11G4 E4
AD4
AD11 chlorate candle
AD1 U10 U7 H11
G12 E12 H4G1 E1
AD12
H12
H1 chemical
G2
G5 E5E2
AD2
AD5 Fill CompIdeal
G7 H5 H2E7 A11 A4
2.0 AD7 G10 E10 A1 ideal
AD10U18 H7 A12
H10
U14
U9U3 A5 A2 complete system
U8 G18E18 I11 I4
AD18U19 U6 H18 G14I12 E14G9 I1 G3 A10 A7
E3
B11 B4
AD3
AD14
AD9
AD8 G19 H14 I2G6 H3E9
G8
I5
H9 E8 E6 B12 B1
AD6
AD19 E19J11 J4H8
H19 J12I10I7J1A18 H6 B5 B2
1.5 U21 J2
J5 A14 B10 B7
A9 A3
U16 J7 A19 F11 F4
F1 A8 A6
I18
G21 E21
O11 J10
K11O4 K4F12 Target Density
AD21
AD16 H21 I14
K12
G16
O12 O1
E16 K1
I9
I8
AB11
I3
B18
AB12 F2 AB4
F5 AB1
X4
X11 I19
J18 H16K7 O2
O5 K2
K5 F7 B14AB5
I6F10 AB2 B9 B3 (1.03 kg/L)
X1
X12 J14
O10K10
O7 A21
J9 B19J3 AB10AB7 B8 B6
X2
X5 J19 F18 J8J6 A16 AC11
AC12 AC4
AC1
X7
X10 U17 O18 I21S11
K18
S12 S4
S1 F14 K3 F9
AB18 F8AB9 F3 AC5 AC2 Contour of equivalent
K19 O14K14
I16
F19S2
S5O9
O8
G17 K9
O3
B21
K8AB14
K6 F6
AB8 AB3 AC10 AC7
X18
AD17
X3
X14
X9 J21J16
O19 S7
S10 AB19
H17O6 E17 B16 AB6 Specific Energy at
X8
X19X6U22 F21 AC18 C11 C4
AC3
1.0 AA4
AA11
AA1AD22
AA12 S18
K21
O21 G22
S14
H22 R11
E22
AB21
R12
S9
K16 F16
S3 R4
R1 AC19A17 AC14 C12
D11 AC9
AC8 AC6 C1
C2
C5 D4
AA2
AA5
AA7
AA10X21 S19
X16 U15 R18J17
O16 S8
I17
S6
R7A22
R10 R2
AB16
R5
AC21 C18 B17 D12C10
D10
C7
D7 D5 D1
D2 Target Density
AA18 S21 I22R14 AC16 C14 C9
C8 C3
AA3
AA9
AA8
AA6
AA19 AD15U20
Y4
Y11
AA14
Y1
Y12
Y2
Y5
AD20
Y7
Y10 U13S16
R19
J22 O17K17
G20
H20
R9
R8F17
R6
H15
E20 R3E15
G15
B22
AB17 C19 D18
D19 D14 D9
D8 C6
D6 D3 Requirements
AA21
Y18
AA16 X17
AD13 O22 R21
K22
R16F22
AB22 I15 H13G13
C21 E13
A20 AC17
D21 A15
C16
Y3
Y14
Y9
Y8
X22
Y6
Y19 S17 I20
J20 J15 I13
N11
N12AC22 B20 D16
N4
N1 B15 A13
Y21
Z4
Z11
Y16
Z1
AA17
Z12
Z2
Z5
AD25 U25 H25
X15
S22
G25
E25 R17
K20
O20 O15
N18 K15
F20J13
AB20
K13
F15
N7
N10 N2
N5
AB15
F13 C17 B13
D17
Z7
Z10
AA22
Z18
Z3
Z14
Z9 X20
X13
U23
W11
W4 R22
S20N19
A25
S15 O13
N14 C22
N9
N8N6
D22
L11
L12 AB13
N3
AC20
L4
L1 AC15AC13
Y17
Z8
Z6
Z19
AD23
Y22
AA15 W1
W12
W2
W5
W7
W10 I25
J25 N21
H23 S13
E23
B25
G23 N16
R15A23
L18 L7D20
L10 C20L2
L5 C15 D13
Z21
AA20
Z16
AA13
X25 W18
W14
W19W9
W8
W6
U24 F25
K25
W3
O25 R20
AB25
I23
J23 L19R13
B23
N17 L14
P11
P12
M11
M12 L9
L8L6
P4
P1
M4
P2
P5 M1L3 D15 C13
0.5 Y15
Y13
Z22 W21
AD24
Y20
Z17X23 S25
W16 K23
O23 AC25
G24L21
E24
F23
H24
N22
AB23
I24 P18
P19
C25
M19 L16
A24
M18P14
M14Q12P7
P10M7
M10
Q11
P9
P8
Q7
Q10M9
P6
M8M6M5
Q4
Q1
P3
Q2
Q5 M2
M3
AA25
Z15
Y25
Z20 W17
W22 R25
S23
J24
K24
O24
R23 D25
P21
M21
Q19
N20
F24
L22
AB24
Q21 AC23
B24
Q18
P16L17
Q14
N15
M16
C23N13Q9 Q8Q6 Q3
AA23
Z13X24
Y23 W15
W20
W13 S24
N25 P22
M22 Q16
D23
AC24
P17
L20M17
Q17
T11
T12 L15
T4
T1
C24
T2 L13
AA24
Z25
Y24
Z23 W25 R24
N23
V11
L25 Q22
T18
T19
V4
V1
V12
V2
V5
V7
T21
V10 T14
T16P20
Q20T7
T10
T9
T8
M20T6T5
D24
P15
T3
M15
P13
Q15M13
Q13
Z24 W23
W24 V18
V14
V19
P25
M25
V21
V16
T22
Q25 V3
V8
V9
V6
L23
N24
T17
P23
V17L24
M23
V22
T25 P24
M24
V15
V20Q24
V13 T15
T20
Q23 T13
V25
V23
Thresh
V24T23
T24
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 18: SE and ED of Storage System options (all options, neglecting product water storage)

3.5
Color H2Type
Obj compressed
liquid
3.0 metal hydride
U4 chemical hydride
U11
U1
Shape O2Type
U5
U12 compressed
2.5 U2 liquid
G11 E11G4 E4
AD4
AD11 G1 chlorate candle
AD1 U10 U7 H11
G12 E12 G5
H4 E5E1
AD5
AD12 H1 chemical
H12 H5 G2
AD2 E2
Fill CompIdeal
G7 H2E7
G10 A11 A4
2.0 AD7
AD10U18
H10H7
E10
A12 A5 A1 ideal
U14
U9U3 A2 complete system
U8 G18E18 I11 I4
AD18U19 U6 H18 G14I12 E14G9I5I1 G3 A10 A7
AD3
AD14 E9 E3
B11 B4
AD9
AD8 H14 G8
H9I2G6 H3E8 E6 B12 B5 B1
G19 E19J11 J4
AD6
AD19 H19 J12I10I7J5 J1H8
A18 H6 B2
1.5 U21 J2 A14 B10 B7
A9 A3
U16 J7 A19 F11 F4
F1 A8 A6
I18
G21 E21
O11 J10
K11O4 K4F12 F5 Target Density
AD21 H21 I14
K12
G16 O1
O5 K1
K5
I9 AB11
B18I3 F2 AB4
AB1
AD16
X4
X11 I19
J18
O12
H16 E16
O2 I8
K2 F7 B14AB5
AB12
I6F10 AB2 B9
B8 B3 (1.03 kg/L)
X1
X5
X12 J14 O7
O10 K7
A21
K10J9 B19J3 AB10 AB7 B6
X2
X7
X10 J19
I21S11
K18 F18
S4
J8J6
F14 K3 F9
A16
F3
AC11
AC12 AC5AC4
AC1
AC2 Contour of equivalent
U17 O18 S12
O14K14
I16
F19S1
S5AB18
K9
O3
B21 F8AB9F6 AC7
X18
AD17 K19
J21J16
O19 S2O9
O8
G17O6K8AB14
K6
E17 B16 AB8 AB3 AC10
X3
X14
X9
X8 U22 S7
S10 AB19
H17 AC18 AB6 Specific Energy at
1.0 AA4
AA11
AA1
X19
AD22
X6 S18
K21
O21 F21
G22 R11
E22
AB21
R12 F16R4
R1
R5 AC19A17 AC14
C11
C12 AC9
AC8 AC6 C5 C4
AC3
C1
C2
AA5
AA12
AA2
AA7
AA10X21 S19 S14
H22
O16 S9
K16
S8
I17
S6S3AB16
R7A22
R10 R2 B17
D11
D12C10 C7 D5 D4
D1
D2 Target Density
X16 U15 R18J17 AC21 C18 AC16 C14 D10 D7 C3
AA18
AA3
AA9
AA8 AD15U20
Y4
Y11
AA14
Y1
Y5
Y12 S21 I22R14
S16 R9
R8F17R3E15
G15
B22
R6 C19 D18 D14 C9
C8
D9 C6 D3 Requirements
AA6
AA19Y2
AD20
Y7
Y10 U13R19
J22 O17K17
G20
H20 H15
E20AB17
G13 D19
E13 D8 D6
AA21
Y18
AA16 X17
AD13 O22 R21
K22
R16F22
AB22 I15 H13C21
A20 AC17
D21 C16A15
Y3
Y14
Y9
Y8
X22
Y6
Y19 S17 I20
J20 J15 I13
N11
N12AC22 B20 D16
N4
N1
N5 B15 A13
Y21
Z4
Z11
Y16
Z1
AA17
Z5
Z12
Z2
AD25 U25 H25
X15 S22
G25
E25 R17
K20
O20 O15
N18 K15
F20J13
AB20
K13
F15
N7
N10 N2
AB15
F13 C17 B13
D17
Z7
Z10
AA22
Z18
Z14
Z3
Z9 X20
X13
U23
W11
W4 R22
S20N19
A25
S15 O13
N14 C22
N9
N8N6
D22
L11 AB13
N3
AC20
L4
L1
L5 AC15AC13
Y17
Z8
Z6
Z19
AD23
Y22
AA15 W1
W5
W12
W2
W7
W10 I25
J25 N21
B25
G23
H23 S13
E23N16
R15A23
L18 L12L7D20
L10 C20L2 C15 C13
Z21
AA20
Z16
AA13
X25 W18
W14
W19 W3
W9
O25
W8
W6
U24 F25
K25 R20
AB25
I23
J23 L19R13
B23
N17 L14
P11
P12
M11
M12 L9
L8L6
P4
P1
P5M4
M5
P2M1L3 D15 D13
0.5 Y15
Y20
Z17
Y13
Z22 W21
AD24
X23 S25
W16 K23
O23 AC25
G24L21
E24
F23
H24
N22
AB23
I24 P18
P19
C25
M19 L16
A24
M18P14
M14Q12P7
P10M7
M10
Q11
P9
P8
Q7
Q10M9
P6
M8 Q4
Q5
M6Q1
P3
Q2M2
M3
AA25
Z15
Y25
Z20 W17
W22 R25
S23
J24
K24
O24
R23 D25
P21
M21
Q19
N20
F24
L22
AB24
Q21 AC23
B24
Q18
P16L17
Q14
N15
M16
C23N13Q9 Q8Q6 Q3
AA23
Z13X24
Y23 W15
W20
W13 S24
N25 P22 Q16
T11
M22 D23
AC24
P17
L20M17
Q17
T12 L15
T4
T1
T5
C24
T2 L13
AA24
Z25
Y24
Z23 W25 R24
V11
L25 Q22
T18
T19
N23
V4
V5
V1
V12
V2
V7
T21
V10 T14
T16P20
Q20T7
T10
T9
T8
M20 D24
P15
T6T3
M15
P13
Q15M13
Q13
Z24W23
W24 V18
V14
V19
P25
V21
M25
V16
T22
Q25 V3
V8
V9
V6
N24
L23
T17
P23
V17L24
M23
V22
T25 P24
M24
V15
V20Q24
V13 T15
T20
Q23 T13
V25
V23
Thresh
V24T23
T24
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 19: SE and ED of Storage System options (all options, with product water storage)

F4
K4 AB4 Color H2Type
1.0 compressed
X4 F10
K10 liquid
AB10
F18 metal hydride
X10 K18 AB18 F9
F19 K9 F8 F6 chemical hydride
K19 K8 K6 AB9
AB8 AB6
X18 AB19 Shape O2Type
X9
X19X8
X6 F21 R4 compressed
AA4 K21 AB21 F16
K16 AB16 liquid
AA10 X21X16 R10
chlorate candle
AA18Y4 R18
AA9
AA8
AA6
AA19 R19
R9F17
K17 R8R6 chemical
AB17
Y10X17
R21 F22 Fill CompIdeal
AA21
AA16 Y18 K22R16AB22
Y9
Y8
X22
Y6
Y19 ideal
N4
Y21
Z4Y16 R17 K15 F20 N10F15
AB15 complete system
AA17 K20 AB20 F13
X15 N18 K13
Z10 X20
AA22
Z18 X13 W4 R22 N19 N8N6 AB13L4
N9
Z9
Z8
Z6
Z19 Y17 N21 N16 L10
0.5 AA15
Z21
AA20Y22
Z16 W18
W10 R15
F25 R20 L19 L18 L9
AA13X25 W6K25AB25
W9
W19W8 R13
N17
L8P4L6
M4
Z17Y15 W21
Y20 W16 F23 L21 L16 P10 M10 Q4 Target Density
Y13
X23 K23 N22
AB23
P19P18
M18 Q10P9
P8
M9P6
Z22 M19 M8 M6
AA25 W17R25 P21 Q18
Q19P16
M21
N20 L17
N15
M16N13 Q9
Q8Q6 (1.03 kg/L)
Z15 K24 F24L22
Z13X24W22
Y25
Z20
AA23 R23 AB24
Q21 Q16
P17
M17L15
Y23 W20 W15
W13N25 R24T18 P22 L20
M22T10 Q17T4 L13 Contour of equivalent
AA24
Z25 Q22 P15
Y24W25 T19
N23
L25 V4 P20T9
M20T8
T6M15
Q15P13
M13 Specific Energy at
Z23 V18 T21
V10
V9 T16 Q20 Q13
Z24 W23 V21 V19
P25
M25 V8
V6
L23
N24 T17
V16
T22
Q25P23
L24 Target Density
W24 V22 V17 M23
Q23 T15
T20 T13
V15
V20 P24
M24
Q24
V13 Requirements
T25
T23
V25
ThreshV23 T24
V24
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Figure 20: SE and ED of Storage System options (complete systems only, with product water storage)
Fuel Cell System

Due to the AIP constraint of the UUV application, it is desirable to operate the FC on H2/O2 rather than
H2/Air. A H2/O2 FC will be capable of higher current densities and thus have higher Power Density.
The impurities of the H2/O2 storage will be the only inert gases to build up in the FC stack, which is a
very small fraction of the stored H2/O2 as compared to the nitrogen and other gases present in air. This
presents the possibility to purge inert gases less frequently if at all, saving energy and system complexity.
In addition, H2/O2 storage will almost certainly have higher SE and ED values than H2/Air storage.
In the UUV application, high cathode, anode, and ambient pressures are available due to the pressure at
the operating depth and depending on the method of H2/O2 storage. This presents the possibility to
operate the fuel cell stack at a higher Power Density and efficiency. The situation is in contrast to land
applications, where cathode pressure is generally produced by a compressor which introduces parasitic
electrical losses to the system. However, there are tradeoffs that must be considered. There will be
higher reactant cross-over through the PEM at the higher hydrogen and oxygen partial pressures, which
introduces another energy loss of its own. This Fuel Cell System tradeoff has not been evaluated at this
point in the project.
Cold seawater is available for cooling of the UUV FCEPS. Heat will be much easier to remove than in a
terrestrial application—perhaps too easy. The thermal management of the system must be carefully

considered, especially if cryogenic hydrogen and/or oxygen storage is used. This Fuel Cell System
tradeoff has not been evaluated at this point in the project.
Figure 21 is a graph showing the Specific Power and Power Density values of the fuel cell stacks and
systems discussed above in the Previous H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell Stacks, Systems, and Applications
section. The list of fuel cell stacks and systems and their corresponding symbols is included in Table 3.
Fuel Cell PD/SP and Density

0.6
Fill Type
stack
FC system
3
0.5 Target Density
5 (1.03 kg/L)
Specific Energy at
4 Target Density
0.4 Requirements
0.3
7 2
0.2
1
11
0.1 69
10
Obj
Thresh
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 21: SP and PD of Fuel Cell stacks and systems
Depending on the power demand profile of the UUV, it may be advantageous to design the FCEPS as a
hybrid system. This would reduce the peak power demand on the FCS, allowing a reduction in FCS mass
and volume. A hybrid power system could be designed based on batteries (Li-Ion, NiMH, etc.),
ultracapacitors, flywheel(s), or other means. Batteries and ultracapacitors would offer low development
effort and could be integrated into unused FCEPS space since they are modular. Depending on the
density of the FCEPS components, batteries could be used instead of ballast to achieve the desired FCEPS
density (batteries are generally denser than water). Flywheels might present other opportunities, such as
potential integration with UUV guidance systems.
FCEPS Integration and Supporting Technology

Several opportunities may exist within the UUV FCEPS for integration of components and systems. This
integration may enhance the FCEPS design beyond what might be expected when assessing its individual
components. The hydrogen and oxygen storage could be thermally integrated with the Fuel Cell System,
providing advantages depending on the choice of storage system options. As discussed earlier, it may be
an advantage to operate the fuel cell stack at higher pressures offered by compressed and other H2/O2
storage options. Additionally, integration of the product water and reactant storage might be possible.
Some FCEPS components might be better suited to operate at seawater pressure rather than the
atmospheric pressure inside a pressure vessel. Components should be grouped accordingly.
The FCEPS concept design process presented above is suitable for a first pass at choosing among Storage
System and Fuel Cell System options to maximize net energy storage. However, there may be other
technologies which would enhance the FCEPS, but have not been included into the concept design
framework yet. These technologies require further assessment to determine their feasibility and benefit to
the FCEPS design.
One of these FCEPS enhancing technologies is thermoelectric modules. Thermoelectrics are capable of
pumping heat using electricity or generating electricity from a temperature difference. This might be
useful for cooling the fuel cell stack while at the same time generating a small amount of electric power
from the temperature difference between the seawater and the fuel cell stack. In FCEPS designs with
cryogenic hydrogen and/or oxygen storage, it might be practical to generate additional electric power,
vaporize and preheat the reactants, and cool the fuel cell. Thermoelectric technology could enable precise
control of Fuel Cell System and Storage System temperatures during operation, or prevent freezing of the
fuel cell stack during UUV transport. It may be possible to include thermoelectric technology in the
FCEPS with a small impact on mass and volume since they are fairly thin and modular. The inclusion of
thermoelectrics would require further investigation and would increase the development effort compared
to traditional means of thermal management such as heat exchangers.
Electric turbines might also enhance the FCEPS design. A turbine could utilize the pressure energy
stored in compressed Storage Systems to complement the fuel cell power output. Again, this would
require further investigation and would increase the development effort.
Superconductors might enhance the FCEPS and UUV design as well. If cryogenic hydrogen and/or
oxygen are used, superconductors might be practical for reducing the power loss associated with electrical
components (DC/DC converters, solenoids, motors, motor controllers) and wires within the FCS and the
entire UUV. Once again, this would require further investigation and would increase the FCEPS and
UUV development effort.
FCEPS Design Concepts

This initial assessment has been done under the assumption that there is no overhead volume and mass.
At this point, the information is not available to determine the other overhead volume and mass
contributions such as insulation, structure, and pressure vessel(s). As mentioned above, the FCEPS
volume and mass is 3681 L and 4082 kg based on the Navy 60” LD MRUUV objectives, resulting in a
density of 1.11 kg/L [Egan, p. 22]. Note that the FCS volume and mass are a small portion of the total
FCEPS volume and mass (9.1% by volume and 15.9% by mass for the BZM 34 FCS option) [Baumert
and Epp].

Storage options from the Directed Technologies study [James] have been excluded from the ternary
graphs in Figure 22 and Figure 23. Table 8 shows the 15 FCEPS design concepts with the highest net
energy storage, as well as:
• Symbol 6K6: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system with the most optimal liquid H2 storage (Magna
Steyr Liquid H2)
• Symbol 6X6: The most optimal Storage System using metal hydride hydrogen storage and excluding
any of the storage options from the Directed Technologies study (Ovonic Onboard Solid H2 and
Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system)
• Symbol 6N15: The most optimal compressed hydrogen and compressed oxygen Storage System
(TUFFSHELL 118L, SCI 604)
The FCEPS options are sorted in order of descending net energy storage. Symbols for the FCEPS options
are a concatenation of the Fuel Cell System, hydrogen storage, and oxygen storage, respectively. As a
comparison, the best RBEPS at the required density of 1.11 kg/L uses the Ultralife Batteries model
UBC641730 Li-Poly prismatic cell, and gives a SE of 0.168 kWh/kg and an ED 0.186 kWh/L.

FCEPS Mass Utilization
Color by FCEPS Plot FCEPS Mass:
Net Energy (kWh): (6AB18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
(6F18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
(6F8); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-425-V
1600 (6F9); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V
1625 (100% Fuel Cell System) (6K18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
1650 (6K6); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
1675
0.00 (6K8); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-425-V
1.00 (6K9); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V
1700 (6N15); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: TUFFSHELL 118L; O2: SCI 604
1725 (6X6); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Ovonic Onboard Solid H2; O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
1750
S
EP
1775
ts
FC
0.25
B )/m
loa
1800 0.75
No
ss last/F
O +m
rm
Sto
aliz
: (m
al
d/B
r a g a s s:
ed
ea
eS
Ma
M
r m ve r h
0.50
ys
ed
0.50
tem m FCEPS
aliz
O
m SS
/
No
0.75
0.25
( 10
)
tem
0%
s
1.00
Ov
0.00 Sy
er h
ge
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

ra
ea
Sto
d/B
Fuel Cell System

0%
alla
Normalized Mass: mFCS/mFCEPS

( 10
st/
Flo
ats
)
Figure 22: Utilization of available mass for selected FCEPS concepts

FCEPS Volume Utilization
Plot FCEPS Volume:
Color by FCEPS (6AB18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
Net Energy (kWh): (6F18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
(6F8); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-425-V
1600 (6F9); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V
1625 (6K18); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
(100% Fuel Cell System)
(6K6); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
1650 (6K8); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-425-V
0.00
1675 1.00 (6K9); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2; O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V
1700 (6N15); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: TUFFSHELL 118L; O2: SCI 604
(6X6); FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Ovonic Onboard Solid H2; O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
1725
S
1750
EP
FC
(V loats
1775
B )/V
0.25
No
1800
O +V
0.75
F
lum llast/
rm
Fu
aliz
a
e:
el
ed ad/B
ed
Ce me:
Vo
e
Vo
ll S
r m ver h
lu
0.50
ys
0.50
O
tem /V FCEP
aliz
V FCS
No
S
0.75
0.25
( 10
0%
)
tem
Ov
1.00 ys
e
0.00
r he
eS
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

ad
rag
/Ba
Sto
Storage System
llas
0%
Normalized Volume: VSS/VFCEPS

t/F
(10
lo
ats
)
Figure 23: Utilization of available volume for selected FCEPS concepts

Sym- Design Description SS FCS Overhead SS FCS Overhead Net SE ED
bol Volum Volum / Ballast/ Mass Mass / Ballast/ Energy (kWhe/ (kWhe/
e (L) e (L) Float (kg) (kg) Float (kWh) kg) L)
Volume Mass
(L) (kg)
6F4 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3166 334 181 1812 650 1620 1987 0.487 0.540
H2: Safe Hydrogen lithium hydride (60%) slurry system
O2: Liquid ozone (O_3) system (Directed Technologies study)
6K4 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3236 334 111 2444 650 988 1979 0.485 0.538
H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2
6AB4 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3146 334 202 1632 650 1800 1900 0.465 0.516
H2: TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp
6F10 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3202 334 145 2139 650 1293 1846 0.452 0.501
O2: Nitrogen tetroxide (N_2O_4) system (Directed
Technologies study)
6K10 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3268 334 79 2725 650 707 1838 0.450 0.499
Technologies study)
6F18 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3280 334 67 2835 650 597 1781 0.436 0.484
O2: Molecular Products CAN 33
6K18 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3343 334 4 3397 650 35 1774 0.434 0.482
0 H2: TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp
Technologies study)

8 H2: TUFFSHELL 118L at LOX temp
6F19 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3293 334 54 2949 650 484 1701 0.417 0.462
O2: Chlorate candle system (Directed Technologies study)
6F9 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3168 334 180 1829 650 1603 1676 0.411 0.455
O2: Andonian Cryogenics LOX-240-V
6K9 FCS: Siemens BZM 34; H2: Magna Steyr Liquid H2 3227 334 120 2362 650 1070 1670 0.409 0.454
6K19 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3285 334 62 3414 650 18 1660 0.407 0.451
O2: Chlorate candle system (Directed Technologies study)
6F8 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3165 334 182 1804 650 1628 1657 0.406 0.450
6K8 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3224 334 123 2331 650 1101 1651 0.404 0.449
6K6 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3206 334 141 2177 650 1256 1623 0.398 0.441
O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
6X6 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 1613 334 1734 2933 650 499 775 0.190 0.210
H2: Ovonic Onboard Solid H2
O2: Sierra Lobo Advanced LOX system
6N15 FCS: Siemens BZM 34 3131 334 217 1498 650 1934 769 0.188 0.209
H2: TUFFSHELL 118L
O2: SCI 604
Table 8: FCEPS design concepts

Comparison of FCEPS and RBEPS
A particular UUV design may be optimal with an energy/power system that has a density higher or lower
than seawater density or that required by the 60” LD MRUUV. In order to see the effect of required
energy/power system density on the FCEPS and RBEPS designs, a range of required densities from 0.3
kg/L to 3.5 kg/L is additionally considered.
The FCEPS and RBEPS design concepts are compared in terms of ED at the required density. At each
required density in the set, the FCEPS design steps above were followed (assuming zero overhead mass
and volume). Only the confirmed data for complete storage systems was used, and the Directed
Technology data was excluded. Likewise, the best battery option was chosen at each required density,
and ballast or floats were added as necessary within the RBEPS. The results are shown in Figure 24 and
Figure 25. In Figure 24, the SE and ED of the FCEPS and RBEPS concepts are scatter-plotted. In Figure
25, the SE and ED are plotted separately as a function of required density. The range of 1.03 to 1.11 kg/L
(seawater density to 60” LD MRUUV required density) is highlighted with a hashed pattern. In both
figures, the FCEPS and RBEPS concepts are labeled with the symbol of the corresponding design (FCS,
H2 storage, and O2 storage, or battery). As was seen in Figure 11, Li-Ion and Li-Poly cells have a density
significantly greater than seawater. As a result, RBEPS designs become more desirable at higher required
densities.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare the life expectancy and the lifetime capacity fade of a FCEPS to a
RBEPS. Fuel cell lifetime and degradation is largely dependent on the FCS design and the operating
conditions, and little or no information has been published on the Siemens BZM 34 with respect to this.
The lifetime performance of the FCEPS would have to be carefully considered later in the design process.
It is also difficult to draw any general comparisons of refueling between the FCEPS and the RBEPS. The
refueling/recharging operation will vary greatly on the particular RBEPS or FCEPS design. The batteries
in some RBEPSs, the Ag-Zn batteries of the U.S. Navy MK30 target for example, must be removed from
the UUV for recharging and conditioning 163 . Others, for example the Li-Ion batteries of the REMUS
AUV, can be recharged internally 164 . The FCEPS may or may not be capable of internal refueling
depending on the hydrogen and oxygen storage options.
163
Leighton Otoman, "MK 30 MOD 1 MOBILE USW TARGET" presentation, Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii,
27-Oct-2005
164
"REMUS Autonomous Underwater Vehicle" brochure, http://www.hydroidinc.com/remus_brochure.pdf, downloaded 30-
Nov-2005

FCEPS and RBEPS ED/SE and Density
0.5 F18
O F18 F9 Shape & Color Type
OO F18 F9
F18 F9 FCEPS
O F18
O O X18 F18
O X18 X9 F18F18 RBEPS
O X18X18
X9 F18
O X18 O
O X18
O X18 AB6 Target Density
O X18 O
0.4 X18
X18 O (1.03 kg/L)
X18 Contour of equivalent
X18
X18 O
X18 Specific Energy at
X18
O Target Density
Requirements
0.3 O
O
O
Thresh
O
O
0.2 O M6
V
V
V
V
0.1 V
V
V
V
0.0 V
AA25
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 24: SE and ED of FCEPS and RBEPS at various required densities

FCEPS and RBEPS
SE and ED at Required Density
AB6F9
SE of FCEPS (kWh/kg)
0.6 F9 SE of RBEPS (kWh/kg)
F9
F18
F18
0.4 M6 F18
F18
F18
F18
F18
F18
F18 X9
X9 X18
0.2 X18
O O O X18 O O
O O O O O X18 O
O O O O X18 X18 O O
V V X18 X18 O O
V V X18 X18 O O O
V ED of FCEPS (kWh/L) X18 X18
V O
ED of RBEPS (kWh/L) X18 X18
V
V
0.0 V
AA25
AA25
F18 F18
F9 F9 F18 O O O
F9 F18 F18 O
F18 F18 X18 O O
F18 F18 X9 X9 X18 X18 O O
O X18 X18 O
O
X18 O
AB6 O X18
X18
0.4 O
X18
X18
X18
X18 X18
O X18
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0.2 M6 O
V
V
V
V seawater density to
V
60" LD MRUUV required density
V
V
V
0.0 V
AA25
AA25
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Density (kg/L)
Figure 25: SE and ED of FCEPS and RBEPS as a function of required density
Conclusions
An UUV Fuel Cell Energy/Power System is a highly integrated system with many design tradeoffs.
However, the UUV application offers unique possibilities for FCEPS design and fuel cell technology.
Some simple analytical tools can help guide FCEPS design. As has been shown, the relationships of

Specific Energy, Energy Density, Specific Power, Power Density, and density are important keys to
optimizing the FCEPS design.
The FCEPS design concept method presented in this report gives a holistic approach to choosing the
hydrogen and oxygen storage and fuel cell options to provide the highest Specific Energy and Energy
Density within the constraints including the FCEPS mass, volume, and required power. Using this
method, some surprising combinations appear as the winners. A combination of the 60% lithium hydride
slurry system from Safe Hydrogen, LLC and CAN 33 chlorate candles from Molecular Products provides
the best SE and PD at 0.44 kWh/kg and 0.48 kWh/L when used with the BZM 34 FCS from Siemens. A
conservative design using compressed hydrogen and oxygen provides less than half of this SE and ED. A
complete design would need to be carried out using the chosen options to determine the actual SE and
ED.
References
Alexandra Baker and David Jollie, "Fuel Cell Market Survey: Military Applications,” Fuel Cell Today,
www.fuelcelltoday.com, 13-April-2005
Rob Baumert and Danny Epp, "Hydrogen storage for fuel cell powered underwater vehicles," proc.
Oceans '93: Engineering in Harmony with the ocean, New York: IEEE, 1993, p. 166-171
David J. Bents, et al., “Hydrogen-Oxygen PEM Regenerative Fuel Cell Energy Storage System,” 2004
Fuel Cell Seminar, San Antonio TX Nov 1-5, 2004, NASA TM 2005-213381
Roy Burcher and Louis Rydill, Concepts in Submarine Design, New York: Cambridge University Press,
1998
Gilbert W. Castellan, Physical Chemistry, Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., 3rd ed.,
1983
Claus Hviid Christensena, et al., "Metal ammine complexes for hydrogen storage," Journal of Materials
Chemistry, web publication, DOI: 10.1039/b511589b, 7-Sep-2005
Henry J. DeRonck, "Fuel cell power systems for submersibles,” proc. Oceans 1994, Brest, France
Chris Egan, “UUV Power & Energy Requirements” presentation, DARPA UUV Energy Workshop,
Newport, RI, 23 Nov 2004
Christopher P. Garcia, et al., "Round Trip Energy Efficiency of NASA Glenn Regenerative Fuel Cell
System,” 9th Grove Fuel Cell Symposium, October 4-6, 2005
Stefan Geiger, "Fuel Cell Powered Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV),” Fuel Cell Today,
www.fuelcelltoday.com, October 2002

Stefan Geiger and David Jollie, "Fuel Cell Market Survey: Military Applications,” Fuel Cell Today,
www.fuelcelltoday.com, 1-April-2004
R. Gitzendanner, et al., “High power and high energy lithium-ion batteries for under-water applications,”
Journal of Power Sources, Volume 136, Issue 2, 1 October 2004, p. 416-418
Gwyn Griffiths, et al., "Modeling Hybrid Energy Systems for Use in AUVs ", Proc. 14th Unmanned
Untethered Submersible Technology, Durham, New Hampshire, August 21-24, 2005
Gwyn Griffiths, "Cost vs. performance for fuel cells and batteries within AUVs"
7th Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Showcase (UUVS 2005), Southampton, UK, September 28-29, 2005
M. S. Haberbusch, et al., "Rechargeable cryogenic reactant storage and delivery system for fuel cell
powered underwater vehicles," IEEE, 2002, 0-7803-7572-6/02, p. 103-109
Albert Hammerschmidt, "PEM Fuel Cells for Air Independent Propulsion,” ONR Workshop on Fuel
Cells for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, October 29, 2003
Albert Hammerschmidt and Josef Lersch, "PEM Fuel Cells for Submarines – New Highlights and Latest
Experiences during Setting to Work," received by email from Albert Hammerschmidt on 28-Jun-2005
Peter Hauschildt and Albert Hammerschmidt, “PEM Fuel Cell Systems – An attractive energy source for
submarines,” Naval Forces, Mönch Publishing Group, Bonn, Germany, edition No. 5, October 2003, pp.
30-33
Willi Hornfeld, "DeepC the German AUV Development Project,” http://www.deepc-

auv.de/deepc/bibliothek/pdf/South_eng.pdf
Tadahiro Hyakudome, et al., "Key Technologies for AUV URASHIMA,” IEEE, 0-7803-7534-3, 2002
Shojiro Ishibashi, et al., "An Ocean Going Autonomous Underwater Vehicle URASHIMA equipped with
a Fuel Cell," IEEE, 0-7803-8541, 2004, p. 209-214
Brian D. James, “UUV Power System Overview,” 2005 UUV Power System Workshop presentation, 20-
April-2005
L. Joerissen, et al., "Fuel Cell System for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle,” 2003 Fuel Cell Seminar
Abstracts, November 3-7, 2003, Miami Beach, FL, p. 1012-1015
Hunter Keeter, “Ohio-class SSGNs Experimental Test Beds for Future Attack Subs,” Navy League,
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/aug_03_10.php, August 2003
Toshio Maeda, et al., "Development of Fuel Cell AUV URASHIMA," Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Technical Review Vol. 41 No. 6 (Dec. 2004)

Andrew W. McClaine, et al., "Hydrogen Transmission/Storage with Metal Hydride-Organic Slurry and
Advance Chemical Hydride/Hydrogen for PEMFC Vehicles," Proc. 2000 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program
Review, NREL/CP-570-28890
Matthew E. Moran, et al., "Experimental Results of Hydrogen Slosh in a 62 Cubic Foot (1750 Liter)
Tank," NASA Technical Memorandum AIA-94-3259, Presented at the 30th Joint Propulsion Conference,
Indianapolis, IN, June 27-29, 1994
Perez-Davis, et al., “Energy Storage for Aerospace Applications,” 36th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference, Savannah, GA, July 29-August 2, 2001, NASA/TM—2001-211068
Joakim Pettersson and Ove Hjortsberg, "Hydrogen Storage Alternatives -- A Technological and
Economic Assessment," KFB (The Swedish Transport and Communications Research Boarch),
Stockholm, http://www.kfb.se/pdfer/M-99-27.pdf, December 1999
Frederick E. Pinkerton and Brian G. Wicke, "Bottling the hydrogen genie," The Industrial Physicist,
February/March 2004, American Institute of Physics, p. 20-23
Laurie Powers, "Flexibly Fueled Storage Tank Brings Hydrogen-Powered Cars Closer to Reality," S&TR,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, June 2003, p. 24-26
G. T. Reader, et al., "Power and Oxygen Sources for a Diver Propulsion Vehicle,” Oceans 2001
MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, Honolulu, HI, ISBN: 0-933957-28-9, vol. 2, p. 880-887,
November 5-8, 2001
Rosenfeld, “DARPA UUV Fuel Cell Program,” ONR Workshop on Fuel Cells for Unmanned Undersea
Vehicles, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, Rhode Island, October 30, 2003
K. Rutherford and D. Doerffel, "Performance of Lithium-Polymer Cells at High Hydrostatic Pressure,"

14th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, Durham, NH, August
21 - 24, 2005
Takao Sawa, et al., "Fuel Cell Power Will Open New AUV Generation," Underwater Intervention 2004,
New Orleans
K. Strasser, "H2/O2-PEM-fuel cell module for an air independent propulsion system in a submarine,"
Handbook of Fuel Cells – Fundamentals, Technology and Applications, p. 1201-1214
Satoshi Tsukioka, et al., “Results of a Long Distance Experiment with the AUV ‘Urashima’,” OCEANS
'04, MTS/IEEE TECHNO-OCEAN '04 Conference Proceedings, August 2004, Vol. 3, p. 1714 - 1719
Omourtag Velev, et al., "PEM Fuel Cell Based Energy Storage Concept for Unmanned Underwater
Vehicles," Intelligent Ships Symposium VI, 1-2 June 2005, Villanova University, Villanova,
Pennsylvania

Ikuo Yamamoto, et al., "Fuel Cell System of AUV Urashima,” received by email from Kazuhisa
Yokoyama on 30-Jun-2005
Hugh D. Young, University Physics, 7th Ed., Addison Wesley, 1992
Rosa C. Young, "Advances of Solid Hydrogen Storage Systems," National Hydrogen Association's 14th
Annual U.S. Hydrogen Conference and Hydrogen Expo, March 4-6, 2003
Andreas Züttel, “Materials for Hydrogen Storage,” Materials Today, September 2003, ISSN 1369 7021,
Elsevier Ltd, p. 24-33

Appendix A: Equations
Storage Metrics
Assuming that all of the Storage System components (hydrogen storage, oxygen storage, product water
storage) are sized to accommodate the same amount of energy (it would be wasteful in terms of mass and
volume to do otherwise), then:
E SS (19)
SE H 2 =
mH 2
E SS (20)
SEO 2 =
mO 2
E SS (21)
SE H 2O =
m H 2O
E SS (22)
EDH 2 =
VH 2
E SS (23)
EDO 2 =
VO 2
E SS (24)
EDH 2O =
VH 2O
Combining the SE of the Storage System components:

E SS 1 1 (25)
SE SS = = =
mH 2 + mO 2 + m H 2 O m H 2 mO 2 m H 2 O 1 1 1
+ + + +
E SS E SS E SS SE H 2 SE O 2 SE H 2O
Combining the ED of the Storage System components:

E SS 1 1 (26)
ED SS = = =
VH 2 + V O 2 + V H 2 O V H 2 VO 2 V H 2 O 1 1 1
+ + + +
E SS E SS E SS ED H 2 EDO 2 ED H 2O
If the product water storage is not necessary, then the equations can be simplified:
SE H 2 SE O 2 (27)
SE SS =
SE H 2 + SE O 2
ED H 2 EDO 2 (28)
ED SS =
ED H 2 + EDO 2

FCS Choice
Assume that the Storage System SE will not change with the selection of the new FCS:
ε FCS 1 SE SS (m SS 0 + m FCS 0 − m FCS 1 ) > ε FCS 0 SE SS m SS 0 (29)
ε FCS1 mSS 0 (30)

>
ε FCS 0 mSS 0 + mFCS 0 − m FCS1
ε FCS 0 m − m FCS1 (31)

< 1 + FCS 0
ε FCS1 mSS 0
ε FCS1 − ε FCS 0 m FCS1 − m FCS 0 (32)

>
ε FCS1 mSS 0
Assume that the Storage System ED will not change with the selection of the new FCS:
ε FCS 1 EDSS (VSS 0 + VFCS 0 − VFCS 1 ) > ε FCS 0 EDSS VSS 0 (33)
ε FCS1 VSS 0 (34)

>
ε FCS 0 VSS 0 + VFCS 0 − VFCS1
ε FCS 0 V − VFCS1 (35)

> 1 + FCS 0
ε FCS1 VSS 0
ε FCS1 − ε FCS 0 VFCS1 − VFCS 0 (36)

>
ε FCS1 VSS 0
If both the inequalities in Equation 32 and Equation 36 are met, then the FCS1 will provide a net energy
benefit over FCS0. If D FCS 1 = D FCS 0 = DSS , then the inequalities express the same condition. If one
inequality is met and the other is not, the FCS1 will not have a benefit over FCS0 because ballast or floats
must be added to maintain the same overall FCEPS density with FCS1 as with FCS0.
Additional FCS Components

Mass of FCEPS must not change:
m New = (mSS 0 − m SS1 ) + (m B 0 − m B1 ) (37)
Volume of FCEPS must not change:

V New = (VSS 0 − VSS 1 ) + (V B 0 − VB1 ) (38)
Assume Storage System density does not change:

mSS 1 mSS 0 (39)
DSS = =
VSS 1 VSS 0

Assume ballast/float density does not change:
mB1 mB 0 (40)
DB = =
VB1 VB 0
The density of the new component is:

m New (41)
D New =
V New
Determine new energy storage volume:

Equations 37, 39, 40→
mNew = DSS (VSS 0 − VSS ) + DB (VB 0 − VB1 ) (42)
mNew − DSS (VSS 0 − VSS 1 ) (43)

VB 0 − VB1 =
DB
Equation 43 →
⎛ m − DSS (VSS 0 − VSS1 ) ⎞ (44)
VSS 0 − VSS1 = VNew − ⎜⎜ New ⎟⎟
⎝ D B ⎠
(45)
VSS 0 − VSS 1 = VNew −
mNew DSS
+ (VSS 0 − VSS 1 )
DB DB
⎛ ⎞ (46)
(VSS 0 − VSS1 )⎜⎜1 − DSS ⎟⎟ = VNew − mNew
⎝ DB ⎠ DB
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ (47)
(VSS 0 − VSS1 )⎜⎜1 − DSS ⎟⎟ = VNew ⎜⎜1 − DNew ⎟⎟
⎝ DB ⎠ ⎝ DB ⎠
⎛ DNew ⎞ (48)
⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟
VSS 1 = VSS 0 − VNew ⎝ B ⎠
D
⎛ DSS ⎞
⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ DB ⎟⎠
VSS 1 = VSS 0 − VNew

(DB − DNew ) (49)
(DB − DSS )
If this condition is met, then the new component or system enhancement will provide an energy storage
benefit:
ε FCS 1ESS 1 > ε FCS 0 ESS 0 (50)
Assume Energy Density of Storage System does not change:

ESS 1 ESS 0 (51)
=
VSS 1 VSS 0
Rewrite the condition in Equation 50:

ε FCS 1 ESS 0 (52)
>
ε FCS 0 ESS 1
Equations 51, 52 →
ε FCS 1 VSS 0 (53)
>
ε FCS 0 VSS 1
Equations 49, 53→

ε FCS 1 VSS 0 (54)
>
ε FCS 0 V − V (DB − DNew )
SS 0 New
(DB − DSS )
ε FCS 1 1 (55)
>
ε FCS 0 1 − New B − DNew )
V ( D
VSS 0 (DB − DSS )
VNew (DB − DNew ) ε FCS 0 (56)

1− >
VSS 0 (DB − DSS ) ε FCS 1
ε FCS 0 VNew (DB − DNew ) (57)

1− >
ε FCS 1 VSS 0 (DB − DSS )
Equivalent Specific Energy and Energy Density at Desired Density

mB (58)
DB =
VB
EDSS (59)
DSS =
SE SS
m SS (60)
DSS =
VSS
Define the DSS _ B as the combined density of the Storage System and the required ballast/floats to bring
the FCEPS to the desired density:
mSS + m B (61)
DSS _ B =
VSS + VB

EDSS (62)
VSS + D BV B
SE SS
DSS _ B =
VSS + V B
EDSS V (63)
+ DB B
SE SS VSS
DSS _ B =
V
1+ B
VSS
⎛ V ⎞ EDSS V (64)
DSS _ B ⎜⎜1 + B ⎟⎟ = + DB B
⎝ VSS ⎠ SE SS VSS
VB
(DSS _ B − DB ) = EDSS − DSS _ B (65)
VSS SE SS
EDSS (66)
− DSS _ B
VB SE SS
=
VSS DSS _ B − DB
Define the SE SS _ B as the Specific Energy of the combined Storage System and the ballast/floats required
to bring the FCEPS to the desired density:
SE SS ⋅ mSS (67)
SE SS _ B =
m SS + m B
Equations 58, 59, 60, 67→

SE SS ⋅ m SS (68)
SE SS _ B =
EDSS
VSS + DBV B
SE SS
Equations 59, 60, 68→

EDSS (69)
SE SS _ B =
EDSS V
+ DB B
SE SS VSS
Equations 66, 69→

EDSS (70)
SE SS _ B =
EDSS
− DSS _ B
EDSS SE SS
+ DB
SE SS DSS _ B − D B

EDSS (DSS _ B − D B ) (71)
SE SS _ B =
DSS (DSS _ B − D B ) + D B (DSS − DSS _ B )
EDSS (DSS _ B − D B ) (72)

SE SS _ B =
DSS DSS _ B − D B DSS _ B
⎛ DB ⎞ (73)
EDSS ⎜1 − ⎟
⎜ D ⎟
SE SS _ B = ⎝ SS _ B ⎠
(DSS − DB )
Make the following substitution, since DSS _ B is the desired Storage System density (it is desirable to
have no ballast or floats required):
DSS _ Desired = DSS _ B (74)
Equations 73, 74→

⎛ DB ⎞ (75)
EDSS ⎜1 − ⎟
⎜ D ⎟
SE SS _ B = ⎝ SS _ Desired ⎠
(DSS − DB )
Equations 75, 3→
EDSS _ B = SE SS _ B DSS _ Desired (76)
Ballast/Float Sizing
mFCEPS = mFCS + mO + mB + mSS (77)
VFCEPS = VFCS + VO + VB + VSS (78)
Equations 58, 60, 77, 78→

mFCEPS = mFCS + mO + DBVB + DSS (VFCEPS − VFCS − VO − VB ) (79)
DSSVB − DBVB = mFCS + mO + DSS (VFCEPS − VFCS − VO ) − mFCEPS (80)
mFCS + mO + DSS (VFCEPS − VFCS − VO ) − mFCEPS (81)

VB =
DSS − DB
m B = VB DB (82)

Appendix B: Storage System Options
Sym- Specific Energy B13 1.81 0.59 D4 3.69 0.78 E20 1.04 0.68
bol Energy Density B14 1.79 0.98 D5 3.53 0.97 E21 1.01 1.03
(kWh/ (kWh/ B15 1.60 0.62 D6 3.00 0.68 E22 0.95 0.79
kg) L) B16 1.53 0.85 D7 2.68 0.74 E23 0.76 0.51
A1 3.73 1.30 B17 1.53 0.75 D8 2.67 0.68 E24 0.76 0.46
A2 3.73 1.24 B18 1.49 1.00 D9 2.66 0.69 E25 0.67 0.56
A3 3.73 1.08 B19 1.32 0.95 D10 2.40 0.74 F1 1.87 1.05
A4 3.69 1.32 B20 1.26 0.61 D11 2.35 0.78 F2 1.87 1.01
A5 3.53 1.97 B21 1.22 0.87 D12 2.28 0.77 F3 1.87 0.90
A6 3.00 1.05 B22 1.13 0.70 D13 1.81 0.47 F4 1.86 1.06
A7 2.68 1.20 B23 0.87 0.47 D14 1.79 0.69 F5 1.82 1.44
A8 2.67 1.06 B24 0.86 0.42 D15 1.60 0.49 F6 1.67 0.88
A9 2.66 1.07 B25 0.75 0.51 D16 1.53 0.63 F7 1.56 0.98
A10 2.40 1.19 C1 3.73 0.81 D17 1.53 0.57 F8 1.56 0.89
A11 2.35 1.32 C2 3.73 0.79 D18 1.49 0.70 F9 1.55 0.90
A12 2.28 1.28 C3 3.73 0.72 D19 1.32 0.68 F10 1.46 0.98
A13 1.81 0.63 C4 3.69 0.82 D20 1.26 0.48 F11 1.44 1.06
A14 1.79 1.08 C5 3.53 1.03 D21 1.22 0.64 F12 1.42 1.04
A15 1.60 0.66 C6 3.00 0.70 D22 1.13 0.54 F13 1.22 0.56
A16 1.53 0.93 C7 2.68 0.77 D23 0.87 0.39 F14 1.21 0.90
A17 1.53 0.80 C8 2.67 0.71 D24 0.86 0.36 F15 1.12 0.59
A18 1.49 1.11 C9 2.66 0.72 D25 0.75 0.42 F16 1.09 0.79
A19 1.32 1.04 C10 2.40 0.77 E1 2.30 1.43 F17 1.09 0.70
A20 1.26 0.65 C11 2.35 0.82 E2 2.30 1.37 F18 1.06 0.92
A21 1.22 0.95 C12 2.28 0.80 E3 2.30 1.18 F19 0.98 0.88
A22 1.13 0.75 C13 1.81 0.49 E4 2.29 1.47 F20 0.94 0.58
A23 0.87 0.49 C14 1.79 0.72 E5 2.23 2.30 F21 0.92 0.81
A24 0.86 0.44 C15 1.60 0.51 E6 2.00 1.13 F22 0.87 0.66
A25 0.75 0.54 C16 1.53 0.65 E7 1.86 1.32 F23 0.71 0.45
B1 3.73 1.15 C17 1.53 0.59 E8 1.85 1.15 F24 0.70 0.41
B2 3.73 1.11 C18 1.49 0.73 E9 1.84 1.17 F25 0.63 0.49
B3 3.73 0.98 C19 1.32 0.70 E10 1.72 1.31 G1 1.83 1.44
B4 3.69 1.17 C20 1.26 0.50 E11 1.69 1.46 G2 1.83 1.38
B5 3.53 1.65 C21 1.22 0.66 E12 1.65 1.41 G3 1.83 1.18
B6 3.00 0.95 C22 1.13 0.55 E13 1.39 0.66 G4 1.82 1.47
B7 2.68 1.08 C23 0.87 0.40 E14 1.38 1.17 G5 1.78 2.32
B8 2.67 0.96 C24 0.86 0.37 E15 1.26 0.70 G6 1.63 1.14
B9 2.66 0.97 C25 0.75 0.43 E16 1.22 1.00 G7 1.53 1.33
B10 2.40 1.07 D1 3.73 0.77 E17 1.22 0.86 G8 1.53 1.16
B11 2.35 1.17 D2 3.73 0.76 E18 1.19 1.21 G9 1.52 1.17
B12 2.28 1.14 D3 3.73 0.69 E19 1.08 1.13 G10 1.44 1.31

G11 1.42 1.47 I5 1.53 1.75 J24 0.63 0.42 L18 0.88 0.49
G12 1.39 1.42 I6 1.42 0.98 J25 0.57 0.50 L19 0.82 0.48
G13 1.20 0.66 I7 1.35 1.12 K1 1.38 1.02 L20 0.80 0.38
G14 1.19 1.18 I8 1.34 1.00 K2 1.38 0.99 L21 0.78 0.46
G15 1.11 0.70 I9 1.34 1.01 K3 1.38 0.88 L22 0.74 0.41
G16 1.07 1.00 I10 1.27 1.11 K4 1.37 1.04 L23 0.62 0.32
G17 1.07 0.86 I11 1.26 1.22 K5 1.35 1.39 L24 0.62 0.30
G18 1.05 1.21 I12 1.24 1.19 K6 1.26 0.86 L25 0.56 0.34
G19 0.97 1.14 I13 1.08 0.61 K7 1.20 0.96 M1 1.27 0.47
G20 0.93 0.68 I14 1.08 1.01 K8 1.20 0.87 M2 1.27 0.46
G21 0.91 1.03 I15 1.00 0.64 K9 1.20 0.88 M3 1.27 0.44
G22 0.86 0.79 I16 0.98 0.88 K10 1.14 0.95 M4 1.27 0.47
G23 0.70 0.51 I17 0.98 0.77 K11 1.13 1.03 M5 1.25 0.53
G24 0.70 0.46 I18 0.96 1.04 K12 1.11 1.01 M6 1.17 0.43
G25 0.62 0.56 I19 0.89 0.98 K13 0.99 0.56 M7 1.12 0.45
H1 1.76 1.39 I20 0.86 0.62 K14 0.98 0.88 M8 1.12 0.43
H2 1.76 1.33 I21 0.84 0.90 K15 0.92 0.58 M9 1.12 0.44
H3 1.76 1.15 I22 0.79 0.71 K16 0.90 0.78 M10 1.07 0.45
H4 1.75 1.43 I23 0.66 0.48 K17 0.90 0.69 M11 1.06 0.47
H5 1.72 2.21 I24 0.65 0.43 K18 0.89 0.90 M12 1.04 0.47
H6 1.58 1.11 I25 0.59 0.52 K19 0.82 0.86 M13 0.93 0.34
H7 1.49 1.29 J1 1.41 1.11 K20 0.80 0.57 M14 0.93 0.44
H8 1.48 1.13 J2 1.41 1.07 K21 0.78 0.79 M15 0.87 0.35
H9 1.48 1.14 J3 1.41 0.95 K22 0.74 0.65 M16 0.85 0.41
H10 1.40 1.27 J4 1.41 1.13 K23 0.62 0.45 M17 0.85 0.38
H11 1.38 1.42 J5 1.39 1.57 K24 0.62 0.40 M18 0.84 0.44
H12 1.35 1.38 J6 1.30 0.92 K25 0.56 0.48 M19 0.78 0.43
H13 1.17 0.65 J7 1.23 1.04 L1 1.37 0.53 M20 0.76 0.34
H14 1.17 1.15 J8 1.23 0.93 L2 1.37 0.52 M21 0.75 0.41
H15 1.08 0.69 J9 1.23 0.95 L3 1.37 0.49 M22 0.71 0.37
H16 1.05 0.98 J10 1.17 1.03 L4 1.37 0.53 M23 0.60 0.29
H17 1.05 0.84 J11 1.16 1.13 L5 1.35 0.71 M24 0.60 0.28
H18 1.03 1.18 J12 1.14 1.10 L6 1.26 0.48 M25 0.54 0.31
H19 0.95 1.11 J13 1.01 0.58 L7 1.20 0.51 N1 1.26 0.60
H20 0.92 0.67 J14 1.00 0.95 L8 1.20 0.48 N2 1.26 0.59
H21 0.89 1.01 J15 0.94 0.61 L9 1.20 0.49 N3 1.26 0.55
H22 0.84 0.78 J16 0.92 0.83 L10 1.14 0.51 N4 1.26 0.61
H23 0.69 0.51 J17 0.92 0.73 L11 1.13 0.53 N5 1.24 0.59
H24 0.69 0.45 J18 0.90 0.97 L12 1.11 0.53 N6 1.16 0.54
H25 0.62 0.56 J19 0.84 0.92 L13 0.99 0.37 N7 1.11 0.58
I1 1.57 1.20 J20 0.81 0.60 L14 0.98 0.49 N8 1.11 0.55
I2 1.57 1.15 J21 0.79 0.85 L15 0.92 0.38 N9 1.11 0.55
I3 1.57 1.01 J22 0.75 0.68 L16 0.90 0.46 N10 1.06 0.58
I4 1.56 1.22 J23 0.63 0.46 L17 0.90 0.42 N11 1.05 0.61
N12 1.04 0.60 P6 1.14 0.44 Q25 0.53 0.30 S19 0.70 0.76
N13 0.93 0.40 P7 1.09 0.46 R1 1.17 0.79 S20 0.68 0.53
N14 0.92 0.55 P8 1.09 0.44 R2 1.17 0.77 S21 0.67 0.71
N15 0.87 0.42 P9 1.09 0.44 R3 1.17 0.71 S22 0.64 0.59
N16 0.85 0.51 P10 1.04 0.46 R4 1.17 0.80 S23 0.55 0.42
N17 0.85 0.47 P11 1.03 0.48 R5 1.15 1.00 S24 0.55 0.38
N18 0.84 0.56 P12 1.02 0.47 R6 1.09 0.69 S25 0.50 0.45
N19 0.78 0.54 P13 0.91 0.34 R7 1.04 0.76 T1 0.88 0.37
N20 0.76 0.41 P14 0.91 0.44 R8 1.04 0.70 T2 0.88 0.36
N21 0.74 0.52 P15 0.85 0.35 R9 1.04 0.70 T3 0.88 0.35
N22 0.71 0.45 P16 0.84 0.41 R10 1.00 0.75 T4 0.88 0.37
N23 0.60 0.34 P17 0.84 0.39 R11 0.99 0.80 T5 0.87 0.41
N24 0.59 0.32 P18 0.82 0.45 R12 0.97 0.79 T6 0.84 0.34
N25 0.54 0.36 P19 0.77 0.44 R13 0.88 0.48 T7 0.81 0.36
O1 1.24 1.01 P20 0.75 0.35 R14 0.87 0.71 T8 0.81 0.35
O2 1.24 0.98 P21 0.73 0.42 R15 0.82 0.50 T9 0.81 0.35
O3 1.24 0.88 P22 0.70 0.37 R16 0.81 0.64 T10 0.78 0.36
O4 1.24 1.03 P23 0.59 0.30 R17 0.81 0.58 T11 0.78 0.37
O5 1.22 1.38 P24 0.59 0.28 R18 0.79 0.72 T12 0.77 0.37
O6 1.15 0.85 P25 0.53 0.31 R19 0.74 0.69 T13 0.71 0.28
O7 1.10 0.95 Q1 1.22 0.45 R20 0.72 0.49 T14 0.70 0.35
O8 1.10 0.86 Q2 1.22 0.44 R21 0.71 0.65 T15 0.67 0.29
O9 1.10 0.87 Q3 1.22 0.42 R22 0.68 0.55 T16 0.66 0.33
O10 1.05 0.95 Q4 1.21 0.45 R23 0.58 0.40 T17 0.66 0.31
O11 1.04 1.02 Q5 1.19 0.51 R24 0.57 0.36 T18 0.65 0.35
O12 1.03 1.00 Q6 1.13 0.41 R25 0.52 0.43 T19 0.62 0.34
O13 0.92 0.55 Q7 1.08 0.44 S1 1.07 0.89 T20 0.60 0.29
O14 0.91 0.87 Q8 1.08 0.42 S2 1.07 0.86 T21 0.59 0.33
O15 0.86 0.58 Q9 1.07 0.42 S3 1.07 0.78 T22 0.57 0.30
O16 0.84 0.77 Q10 1.03 0.44 S4 1.07 0.90 T23 0.50 0.25
O17 0.84 0.68 Q11 1.02 0.45 S5 1.05 1.16 T24 0.49 0.24
O18 0.83 0.89 Q12 1.01 0.45 S6 1.00 0.76 T25 0.46 0.26
O19 0.77 0.85 Q13 0.90 0.33 S7 0.96 0.84 U1 0.79 1.55
O20 0.75 0.57 Q14 0.90 0.42 S8 0.96 0.77 U2 0.79 1.48
O21 0.74 0.79 Q15 0.85 0.34 S9 0.96 0.78 U3 0.79 1.26
O22 0.70 0.64 Q16 0.83 0.39 S10 0.92 0.84 U4 0.79 1.59
O23 0.59 0.45 Q17 0.83 0.37 S11 0.91 0.90 U5 0.78 2.63
O24 0.59 0.40 Q18 0.82 0.42 S12 0.90 0.88 U6 0.75 1.21
O25 0.54 0.48 Q19 0.76 0.41 S13 0.82 0.52 U7 0.73 1.42
P1 1.23 0.47 Q20 0.74 0.33 S14 0.82 0.78 U8 0.73 1.23
P2 1.23 0.47 Q21 0.73 0.40 S15 0.77 0.54 U9 0.73 1.24
P3 1.23 0.44 Q22 0.69 0.36 S16 0.76 0.70 U10 0.71 1.40
P4 1.23 0.48 Q23 0.59 0.29 S17 0.76 0.63 U11 0.70 1.58
P5 1.21 0.54 Q24 0.58 0.27 S18 0.75 0.80 U12 0.69 1.53
U13 0.64 0.69 W7 0.48 0.50 Y1 0.35 0.70 Z20 0.25 0.40
U14 0.64 1.25 W8 0.48 0.47 Y2 0.35 0.68 Z21 0.24 0.49
U15 0.62 0.72 W9 0.48 0.48 Y3 0.35 0.63 Z22 0.24 0.43
U16 0.61 1.06 W10 0.47 0.50 Y4 0.34 0.70 Z23 0.23 0.33
U17 0.61 0.90 W11 0.47 0.52 Y5 0.34 0.85 Z24 0.23 0.31
U18 0.60 1.29 W12 0.47 0.51 Y6 0.34 0.62 Z25 0.22 0.35
U19 0.57 1.20 W13 0.44 0.36 Y7 0.33 0.67 AA1 0.26 0.79
U20 0.56 0.71 W14 0.44 0.48 Y8 0.33 0.62 AA2 0.26 0.77
U21 0.55 1.09 W15 0.43 0.37 Y9 0.33 0.63 AA3 0.26 0.70
U22 0.53 0.82 W16 0.43 0.45 Y10 0.33 0.67 AA4 0.26 0.80
U23 0.47 0.53 W17 0.43 0.42 Y11 0.33 0.70 AA5 0.26 0.99
U24 0.46 0.47 W18 0.42 0.48 Y12 0.33 0.69 AA6 0.26 0.69
U25 0.43 0.58 W19 0.41 0.47 Y13 0.31 0.44 AA7 0.25 0.75
V1 0.65 0.34 W20 0.40 0.37 Y14 0.31 0.63 AA8 0.25 0.69
V2 0.65 0.34 W21 0.40 0.45 Y15 0.31 0.46 AA9 0.25 0.70
V3 0.65 0.32 W22 0.39 0.40 Y16 0.30 0.58 AA10 0.25 0.75
V4 0.65 0.34 W23 0.35 0.31 Y17 0.30 0.52 AA11 0.25 0.79
V5 0.64 0.37 W24 0.35 0.29 Y18 0.30 0.64 AA12 0.25 0.78
V6 0.62 0.32 W25 0.33 0.33 Y19 0.30 0.62 AA13 0.24 0.48
V7 0.61 0.33 X1 0.46 0.96 Y20 0.29 0.45 AA14 0.24 0.70
V8 0.61 0.32 X2 0.46 0.93 Y21 0.29 0.58 AA15 0.24 0.50
V9 0.61 0.32 X3 0.46 0.84 Y22 0.28 0.50 AA16 0.24 0.64
V10 0.59 0.33 X4 0.46 0.97 Y23 0.26 0.37 AA17 0.24 0.57
V11 0.59 0.34 X5 0.46 1.28 Y24 0.26 0.34 AA18 0.24 0.71
V12 0.59 0.34 X6 0.45 0.81 Y25 0.25 0.40 AA19 0.23 0.69
V13 0.55 0.27 X7 0.44 0.91 Z1 0.28 0.57 AA20 0.23 0.49
V14 0.55 0.32 X8 0.44 0.82 Z2 0.28 0.56 AA21 0.23 0.65
V15 0.53 0.27 X9 0.44 0.83 Z3 0.28 0.53 AA22 0.22 0.54
V16 0.52 0.31 X10 0.43 0.90 Z4 0.28 0.58 AA23 0.21 0.40
V17 0.52 0.29 X11 0.43 0.97 Z5 0.28 0.68 AA24 0.21 0.36
V18 0.52 0.33 X12 0.43 0.95 Z6 0.28 0.52 AA25 0.20 0.42
V19 0.49 0.32 X13 0.41 0.54 Z7 0.27 0.55 AB1 1.98 1.01
V20 0.49 0.27 X14 0.41 0.83 Z8 0.27 0.52 AB2 1.98 0.97
V21 0.48 0.31 X15 0.40 0.56 Z9 0.27 0.53 AB3 1.98 0.87
V22 0.46 0.28 X16 0.39 0.74 Z10 0.27 0.55 AB4 1.97 1.02
V23 0.41 0.24 X17 0.39 0.66 Z11 0.27 0.58 AB5 1.92 1.37
V24 0.41 0.23 X18 0.39 0.85 Z12 0.27 0.57 AB6 1.76 0.85
V25 0.39 0.25 X19 0.38 0.81 Z13 0.26 0.39 AB7 1.64 0.95
W1 0.51 0.52 X20 0.37 0.55 Z14 0.26 0.53 AB8 1.63 0.86
W2 0.51 0.51 X21 0.37 0.76 Z15 0.26 0.40 AB9 1.63 0.87
W3 0.51 0.48 X22 0.36 0.62 Z16 0.25 0.49 AB10 1.53 0.94
W4 0.51 0.52 X23 0.33 0.44 Z17 0.25 0.45 AB11 1.51 1.02
W5 0.51 0.61 X24 0.33 0.39 Z18 0.25 0.53 AB12 1.48 1.00
W6 0.49 0.47 X25 0.31 0.47 Z19 0.25 0.52 AB13 1.27 0.55
AB14 1.26 0.87 AC6 3.00 0.79 AC23 0.87 0.43 AD15 1.60 0.69
AB15 1.16 0.58 AC7 2.68 0.88 AC24 0.86 0.39 AD16 1.53 0.99
AB16 1.13 0.77 AC8 2.67 0.80 AC25 0.75 0.46 AD17 1.53 0.85
AB17 1.13 0.68 AC9 2.66 0.81 AD1 3.73 1.42 AD18 1.49 1.20
AB18 1.10 0.89 AC10 2.40 0.87 AD2 3.73 1.36 AD19 1.32 1.12
AB19 1.01 0.85 AC11 2.35 0.94 AD3 3.73 1.17 AD20 1.26 0.68
AB20 0.97 0.57 AC12 2.28 0.92 AD4 3.69 1.45 AD21 1.22 1.02
AB21 0.95 0.79 AC13 1.81 0.53 AD5 3.53 2.26 AD22 1.13 0.79
AB22 0.89 0.64 AC14 1.79 0.81 AD6 3.00 1.12 AD23 0.87 0.51
AB23 0.72 0.45 AC15 1.60 0.55 AD7 2.68 1.31 AD24 0.86 0.45
AB24 0.72 0.40 AC16 1.53 0.72 AD8 2.67 1.14 AD25 0.75 0.56
AB25 0.64 0.48 AC17 1.53 0.64 AD9 2.66 1.16
AC1 3.73 0.93 AC18 1.49 0.83 AD10 2.40 1.29
AC2 3.73 0.90 AC19 1.32 0.79 AD11 2.35 1.45
AC3 3.73 0.81 AC20 1.26 0.54 AD12 2.28 1.40
AC4 3.69 0.94 AC21 1.22 0.74 AD13 1.81 0.66
AC5 3.53 1.22 AC22 1.13 0.61 AD14 1.79 1.16

UUV FCEPS Technology Assessment and Design Process PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UUV FCEPS Technology Assessment and Design Process PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

“UUV FCEPS Technology Assessment and Design Process”

Kevin L. Davies 1 and Robert M. Moore

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 1 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 2 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 3 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 4 10/27/2006

January 3, 2006: Initial Draft

October 27 2006: Final Report:

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 5 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 6 10/27/2006

Fuel Cell Energy Power System (FCEPS)

Underwater Unmanned Vehicle (UUV)

Figure 1: UUV FCEPS block diagram

Requirements and Environmental Conditions

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 7 10/27/2006

Navy 60” LD MRUUV

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 8 10/27/2006

Previous H2/O2 PEM Fuel Cell Stacks, Systems, and Applications

Lynntech Gen IV Flightweight 5 kW for Helios

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 9 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 10 10/27/2006

Nedstack A200 (5, 10, 20 kWe)

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 11 10/27/2006

Nedstack for Submarine

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 12 10/27/2006

Siemens BZM 120

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 13 10/27/2006

ZSW BZ 100 (100, 250, 500, 1000W)

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 14 10/27/2006

ZSW for DeepC

Electrochem 1 kW for NASA

Honeywell 5.25 kW for NASA

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 15 10/27/2006

MHI for Urashima

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 16 10/27/2006

Teledyne 7 kW for NASA

UTC for 44" UUV

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 17 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 18 10/27/2006

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 19 10/27/2006

Cathode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Anode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Cell Degradation Rate (µV/hr)

Operating temperature (°C)

Degree of Oxidant Purity

Current density (A/cm2)

Degree of Fuel Purity

Peak Power (kW)

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 20 10/27/2006

Cathode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Anode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Cell Degradation Rate (µV/hr)

Operating temperature (°C)

Degree of Oxidant Purity

Current density (A/cm2)

Degree of Fuel Purity

Peak Power (kW)

[061027 UUV_FCEPS_ReportRev5.doc] Page 21 10/27/2006

Cathode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Anode Operating Pressure (MPa)

Cell Degradation Rate (µV/hr)

Operating temperature (°C)

Degree of Oxidant Purity